# [ Thread is unlocked ] Megarenter Rap Lawsuit



## Eric B

'Megarenter rap' describes plot to cheat Wyndham timeshare customers, lawsuit contends | Central Florida
					

A lawsuit by Wyndham timeshare customers alleges that the company intentionally changed the rules on owners to make it more difficult to rent out their properties.




					spotonflorida.com
				




Article today from the Orlando Sentinel.  Full article is behind a paywall; I'm not a subscriber there, so wasn't able to read it.


----------



## 55plus

Here's the same article without subscription limitations: https://www.newsbreak.com/news/2333...-wyndham-timeshare-customers-lawsuit-contends


----------



## Eric B

Thanks!


----------



## 55plus

Same article incase it's removed from online:

"Just you wait, we’re gonna figure it out. We’re gonna put you outta business and surely make you pout.”

Those lines come from “the Megarenter rap,” written by an employee of the Wyndham network of timeshare resorts, and it points to a conspiracy among the company’s executives to penalize timeshare owners too successful at turning their points into profits, according to a lawsuit filed in Orange Circuit Court in Orlando.

Yvonne and Kenneth Klebba of Michigan originally sued in 2014 but filed the most recent amended version of their complaint in July.

Discovery in the case produced the email featuring “the Megarenter rap,” as Wyndham calls it in court documents, allegedly written by an employee identified as Melissa Amado. No other information about the rap was available.

The Klebbas began purchasing ownership in Wyndham’s timeshare plan in 2001 and have acquired more than 67 million points in Wyndham’s system, the lawsuit claims. Points are how owners reserve vacation resort rooms at Wyndham properties around the world.

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs were lured into buying points with the promise that they could rent them out to generate income, allowing non-timeshare owners to stay at Wyndham resorts.

Support from the company would include allowing owners to sell and transfer points they could not use before the end of the year, have their names on several reservations and keep points even if reservations were canceled, and other perks specific to VIP owners, according to the complaint.

Wyndham became concerned that owners such as the Klebbas and other “megarenters” were cutting into the larger business model of attracting new owners, the complaint alleges. One consulting group allegedly told Wyndham that disrupting the business of megarenters could bring in an additional $2.5 million per year, according to the suit.

“Ms. Klebba’s actions are an apparent attempt to operate a commercial rental business in violation of clearly disclosed rules prohibiting such conduct,” an unnamed spokesman for Wyndham said in a statement. “We believe her claims are without merit and we will continue to protect our timeshare owners from those who would seek to profit at their expense.”

In about 2008, Wyndham leadership secretly developed its “Megarenter Strategy,” a plan to disenfranchise owners such as the Klebbas, the suit claims. This allegedly included training call center staff to delay bookings by megarenters, using software that would make multiple bookings more difficult and enforcing guidelines in a more strict manner.

Additionally, the complaint claims the company took away a variety of VIP benefits, such as unlimited free guest certificates that saved them on fees. They also closed “loopholes” that the plaintiffs allege had been promised to them as benefits at the point of sale, including getting a VIP discount for rooms that had been reserved, canceled and rebooked.

In 2020, Wyndham canceled a “significant number” of reservations made by the plaintiffs, saying they violated the company’s policy on “engaging in commercial activity,” according to the complaint. But commercial activity was the reason the Klebbas were told to buy the points in the first place, the suit says.

In March, the complaint alleges, the company announced that guest reservations at key resorts during peak travel times “will be subject to cancellation,” and in June limited dates that were available for guest reservations, further restricting the value of the points the Klebbas purchased.

“In effect, Wyndham has eliminated Plaintiffs’ ability to rent accommodations on weekends and holidays at many resorts,” the complaint says.

The lawsuit contends that Wyndham’s practices violate Florida’s Vacation Plan and Timesharing Act among other statutes and are asking for unspecified compensatory damages, legal fees and other costs.


----------



## 55plus

If my math is correct, and someone please check it, using $6/1000:  67,000,000 points at $6/1000 points comes to $402,000 a year in maintenance fees. Is this correct? Can this be possible?


----------



## Eric B

55plus said:


> If my math is correct, and someone please check it, using $6/1000:  67,000,000 points at $6/1000 points comes to $402,000 a year in maintenance fees. Is this correct? Can this be possible?



Your math is correct, though I think the $6 would include the program fees, too, if they did it right.  If they were able to rent them for $10/1000 that would be $268K/year above the fees.


----------



## dgalati

55plus said:


> If my math is correct, and someone please check it, using $6/1000:  67,000,000 points at $6/1000 points comes to $402,000 a year in maintenance fees. Is this correct? Can this be possible?


Monthly $33,500


----------



## HitchHiker71

Assuming an average points per reservation of 150k per transaction - that would equate to 467 rental reservations that were denied to actual Wyndham owners. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## bshanebowl

Orlando Sentinel: 'Megarenter rap' describes plot to cheat Wyndham timeshare customers, lawsuit contends.








						‘Megarenter rap’ describes plot to cheat Wyndham timeshare customers, lawsuit contends
					

A lawsuit by Wyndham timeshare customers alleges that the company intentionally changed the rules on owners to make it more difficult to rent out their properties.




					www.orlandosentinel.com


----------



## Jan M.

Are they hoping to squeeze money out of Wyndham with a settlement on a nuisance lawsuit?

We've owned since 2002 under Fairfield and the part about personal use, not for commercial purposes, was in the paperwork we signed every time we bought more points. As was the part about VIP benefits could be changed at any time.

I sure wish I kept all of our old directories and supplements to them but I didn't. I thought OP posted that the commercial renting clause was absent from one directory but I never checked to see if it was in the supplement to that directory. I'm assuming the oversight was corrected and it was.

The only vulnerability I is see here on Wyndham's part is if they appear to be selectively enforcing the no commercial renting. I go back to what the attorney for the HOA where we live told my husband when he was the board president. There was something in our bylaws that hadn't been previously enforced but became necessary to do so. The attorney said as long as they announced that it would henceforth be enforced and there was no selective enforcement they were okay.

Some people are still actively engaged in renting as is obvious if you look on eBay and the other sites people use. I only looked on eBay and only looked at two resorts. There's an awful lot of listings for stays that are on the black out lists. Perhaps those owners will be getting a letter from Wyndham. Perhaps their plan is to make every dollar they can up to the very last moment it's no longer possible.

The outcome I expect from this b.s. lawsuit and the owners still very actively engaged in commercial renting is this. Wyndham will be making additional changes and these changes will have some real bite to them. Every single owner will be impacted if Wyndham does what I think they will.


----------



## troy12n

Wish these people would just go away... they had their free ride. Time to figure out some other scam.


----------



## Eric B

HitchHiker71 said:


> Assuming an average points per reservation of 150k per transaction - that would equate to 467 rental *reservations that were denied to actual Wyndham owners*.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



It might not be a popular point of view, but they were actual Wyndham owners who claim they were using the reservation for the purposes that Wyndham Sales encouraged them to buy the deeds for.  I'm not falling on their side of the dispute (nor Wyndham's, to be frank), instead I'll just be interested to watch from the sidelines and see what happens.  IMHO, the restriction on rentals that Wyndham should have had all along would be that you can rent what you own rather than what you reserve through Club Wyndham.  That works elsewhere and avoids people gaming the system (at least to some extent) by owning someplace with inexpensive MFs and booking for rental purposes someplace else that will turn them a profit.  That's the major weakness in the Wyndham system and I don't believe the current updates do anything to address it.


----------



## Eric B

troy12n said:


> Wish these people would just go away... they had their free ride. Time to figure out some other scam.



Just in case I forget on Tuesday, Happy Anniversary of the day you joined TUG as a guest!


----------



## troy12n

Eric B said:


> Just in case I forget on Tuesday, Happy Anniversary of the day you joined TUG as a guest!



Your incessant rambling about my "guest" status isn't going to change that. If the website owners wanted this site to be exclusively pay to join, that's their prerogative. It's not something *you*, as a paying member, have any say in... 

It does in a kind of creepy way seem like you are stalking and harassing me though...


----------



## troy12n

Eric B said:


> It might not be a popular point of view, but they were actual Wyndham owners who claim they were using the reservation for the purposes that Wyndham Sales encouraged them to buy the deeds for.



Wyndham isn't encouraging anyone to buy resale, ever. And it's pretty clear the plaintiffs had tens of millions of resale points. Even the most butthurt mega renter can't claim such ridiculous things.


----------



## Eric B

troy12n said:


> Your incessant rambling about my "guest" status isn't going to change that. If the website owners wanted this site to be exclusively pay to join, that's their prerogative. It's not something *you*, as a paying member, have any say in...
> 
> It does in a kind of creepy way seem like you are stalking and harassing me though...



Troy, to be perfectly honest, I do not care if you pay to join or continue to enjoy the "free ride" of being a guest.  I have noticed a tendency in some posts to comment on others getting a "free ride" elsewhere and I find those to be in a bit of tension with each other.  Since my posts seem to bother you, I'll add you to my ignore list.


----------



## Cyrus24

Jan M. said:


> The only vulnerability I is see here on Wyndham's part is if they appear to be selectively enforcing the no commercial renting.


Yes, what defines commercial activity?  If I'm given 15 GC and use 16 GC's, am I now a commercial activity.  Where will they draw the line?



Jan M. said:


> Wyndham will once again make changes and these changes will have some real bite to them.


The change coming this month has real bite as it relates to anyone with resale points.  I only have 168K in resale which I'll probably get rid of as I can't see managing, what will seem like, 2 accounts long term.  It will just be a hassle.

Wyndham will buy them out and make them go away, OR, bleed them dry with Attorney Fees and MF's.


----------



## Cyrus24

Eric B said:


> Troy, to be perfectly honest, I do not care if you pay to join or continue to enjoy the "free ride" of being a guest. I have noticed a tendency in some posts to comment on others getting a "free ride" elsewhere and I find those to be in a bit of tension with each other.


I second this opinion.  Criticizing one person for taking a free ride while taking a free ride is just not right.


----------



## 55plus

Cyrus24 said:


> Wyndham will buy them out and make them go away, OR, bleed them dry with Attorney Fees and MF's.


Wyndham won't buy them out. In fact, they'll do the opposite. Wyndham may go as far as to make them pick up Wyndham's legel fees and court costs. Wyndham will make an example out of them. I know something, but can't share it at this time.


----------



## Cyrus24

55plus said:


> I know something, but can't share it at this time.


Do share when the time is right.  Your scenario is certainly possible.


----------



## troy12n

Cyrus24 said:


> I second this opinion.  Criticizing one person for taking a free ride while taking a free ride is just not right.



Great straw man argument... 

Please let me know how my "free ride" here at TUG is preventing anyone else from joining... or participating. 

Meanwhile the Mega Renters ARE preventing regular owners from using their timeshare. This is an undebatable fact. But yes, please continue your fantasy comparison. It's a great look for you.


----------



## troy12n

55plus said:


> Wyndham won't buy them out. In fact, they'll do the opposite. Wyndham may go as far as to make them pick up Wyndham's legel fees and court costs. Wyndham will make an example out of them.



That's probably why they dropped the lawsuit before...


----------



## Cyrus24

troy12n said:


> Please let me know how my "free ride" here at TUG is preventing anyone else from joining... or participating.


It's not and that is not the point.  As we all know, while not defending a mega-renter, they were not taking a free ride, as you frequently contend.  You have had the same participation rights that they have had.   On TUG, you are truly participating, big time, for free.


----------



## Cyrus24

troy12n said:


> Meanwhile the Mega Renters ARE preventing regular owners from using their timeshare. This is an undebatable fact.


You are entitled to your own opinions but you are not entitled to your own facts.  EVERY owner has the exact same timeshare usage rights at 12AM Eastern, 13/10 months out.  NO one is preventing an owner from using their timeshare.


----------



## tschwa2

troy12n said:


> Great straw man argument...
> 
> Please let me know how my "free ride" here at TUG is preventing anyone else from joining... or participating.
> 
> Meanwhile the Mega Renters ARE preventing regular owners from using their timeshare. This is an undebatable fact. But yes, please continue your fantasy comparison. It's a great look for you.


When wyndham resells the mega renters 700 million points, you will have 2000+ regular owners booking those points so no additional inventory will open up.  

I guess you could purchase and pay Mf on those 700 million points and not book anything in order to allow more regular members to use their timeshares.


----------



## Rolltydr

Cyrus24 said:


> You are entitled to your own opinions but you are not entitled to your own facts.  EVERY owner has the exact same timeshare usage rights at 12AM Eastern, 13/10 months out.  NO one is preventing an owner from using their timeshare.


EVERY owner doesn’t have the flexibility to schedule 13-10 months out. In fact, I would think a small percentage of them can. I am retired and have that flexibility but I believe the majority of Wyndham owners are working stiffs who would find it very difficult to book a week of vacation that far in advance. I believe you’re dead wrong on this one. Otherwise, owners wouldn’t be complaining that they can’t get reservations when they need them.


----------



## davidvel

Cyrus24 said:


> I second this opinion.  Criticizing one person for taking a free ride while taking a free ride is just not right.


But they are not taking a "free ride." They don't get the extra benefits afforded to paying members, just the benefits that are being provided by Brian for free. His posts commenting on guest status are in fact creepy.


----------



## Cyrus24

Rolltydr said:


> EVERY owner doesn’t have the flexibility to schedule 13-10 months out. In fact, I would think a small percentage of them can. I am retired and have that flexibility but I believe the majority of Wyndham owners are working stiffs who would find it very difficult to book a week of vacation that far in advance. I believe you’re dead wrong on this one. Otherwise, owners wouldn’t be complaining that they can’t get reservations when they need them.


My point was that EVERY owner CAN book at 13/10 months.  At 12AM 13/10 months out, we are ALL equal.


----------



## ronparise

55plus said:


> If my math is correct, and someone please check it, using $6/1000:  67,000,000 points at $6/1000 points comes to $402,000 a year in maintenance fees. Is this correct? Can this be possible?



The math isnt difficult,,  you you multiplied correctly.
 6 X 67,000 does indeed equal  402000  just like 2x2 =4

Why do you think, 3rd grade arithmetic might not be real?


----------



## davidvel

troy12n said:


> Meanwhile* the Mega Renters ARE preventing regular owners from using their timeshare. This is an undebatable fact.* But yes, please continue your fantasy comparison. It's a great look for you.


Sounds like it's debatable:


Cyrus24 said:


> You are entitled to your own opinions but you are not entitled to your own facts.  EVERY owner has the exact same timeshare usage rights at 12AM Eastern, 13/10 months out.  NO one is preventing an owner from using their timeshare.





Rolltydr said:


> EVERY owner doesn’t have the flexibility to schedule 13-10 months out. In fact, I would think a small percentage of them can. I am retired and have that flexibility but I believe the majority of Wyndham owners are working stiffs who would find it very difficult to book a week of vacation that far in advance. I believe you’re dead wrong on this one. Otherwise, owners wouldn’t be complaining that they can’t get reservations when they need them.


Whatever people's personal flexibility is doesn't matter. The rules give everyone the equal right to reserve based on status or whatever. 

If someone owns a gazillion points and uses them all, are they "*preventing regular owners from using their timeshare?"*
If so, how, and is that OK by your standards?

If someone owns a gazillion points and gives them away to family and friends, are they "*preventing regular owners from using their timeshare?"*
If so, how, and is that OK by your standards?

Is it only when they rent weeks out that they are miraculously "*preventing regular owners from using their timeshare?" * I understood the logic of this argument. Renters don't change the available inventory.


----------



## davidvel

ronparise said:


> The math isnt difficult,,  your you multiplied correctly 6 X 67,000 does indeed equal  402000  just like 2x2 =4
> 
> What do you think, 3rd grade arithmetic might not be real?


Classy Ron.


----------



## Eric B

Rolltydr said:


> EVERY owner doesn’t have the flexibility to schedule 13-10 months out. In fact, I would think a small percentage of them can. I am retired and have that flexibility but I believe the majority of Wyndham owners are working stiffs who would find it very difficult to book a week of vacation that far in advance. I believe you’re dead wrong on this one. Otherwise, owners wouldn’t be complaining that they can’t get reservations when they need them.



That's the problem with the timeshare model for some folks.  It's hard to conceive of a system that would have sufficient capacity that short-term availability would exist in high demand resorts/weeks without there having to be so much vacancy that the cost would be prohibitive.  We'll see how things work out for availability in those now that the megarenters have been dealt with (to the extent that Wyndham can deal with them), but I don't think the end result will be the improved availability for the non-planners that some do.  My thought is that there may be better chances of getting decent discounts/upgrades as a VIP because there will be a fair number of points in the system that are no longer VIP-eligible and that will reduce the competition in the marketplace for the discounts and upgrades.  I don't see any other likely outcomes for the customer side of things.

I do believe it's a more rational way for Wyndham to control their costs, though.  But, all things being equal I don't see any point in name calling or insulting the supposed megarenters/freeloaders - that's a bit close to the line for me.  I do see indications of pretty poor management of the whole situation by Wyndham, though; maybe this is a step in the right direction for them, but we'll have to see there, too.


----------



## VacayKat

Ok, so help me out here. This person was sold the points and paid the MF yearly. They were not in arrears. How does Wyndham have to protect other owners from these folk who were ‘profiting at their expense’? And exactly how does someone renting out their legitimately gotten points hurt me, another owner who also has legitimate points. I honestly just do not grasp how someone renting their points harms me. If points are only sold that track to actual availability to rent, then it does not matter whether the owner or a guest uses the reservation, it’s legitimate.
Please do not start a thread attacking me - help me actually understand in factual terms and examples how a renter hurts other owners. (As in, don’t say it is a fact unless you cite the evidence)


----------



## Eric B

VacayKat said:


> Ok, so help me out here. This person was sold the points and paid the MF yearly. They were not in arrears. How does Wyndham have to protect other owners from these folk who were ‘profiting at their expense’? And exactly how does someone renting out their legitimately gotten points hurt me, another owner who also has legitimate points. I honestly just do not grasp how someone renting their points harms me. If points are only sold that track to actual availability to rent, then it does not matter whether the owner or a guest uses the reservation, it’s legitimate.
> Please do not start a thread attacking me - help me actually understand in factual terms and examples how a renter hurts other owners. (As in, don’t say it is a fact unless you cite the evidence)



I'm pretty much aligned with that line of thinking.  There were things that went on in the past (pre-2016) where people got more points to use than they should have like getting the full value of a reservation returned to their accounts when canceling a discounted one; others have posted about somehow getting nearly unlimited points from Wyndham with no good basis by some other means.  But if they own the points and the MFs are paid, I don't see the issue in general.


----------



## paxsarah

Rolltydr said:


> EVERY owner doesn’t have the flexibility to schedule 13-10 months out.


Wyndham’s cancellation policy is quite generous. There is absolutely no reason an owner couldn’t take their best stab at vacation plans at 10 months, and cancel with full points returned anytime in the ensuing 9.5 months. It took me three tries to get my spring break booked for this year. I may have even had to buy a $19 reservation transaction in the process. It was completely worth it.


----------



## scootr5

Eric B said:


> I do believe it's a more rational way for Wyndham to control their costs, though.



Especially if Wyndham was covering the cost of the points difference for the discounts and upgrades on the non-VIP eligible resale points.


----------



## ronparise

[QUO
member: 107981"]
Assuming an average points per reservation of 150k per transaction - that would equate to 467 rental reservations that were denied to actual Wyndham owners.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
[/QUOTE]


My understanding is that the Klebbas are actual Wyndham owners   No???


troy12n said:


> Your incessant rambling about my "guest" status isn't going to change that. If the website owners wanted this site to be exclusively pay to join, that's their prerogative. It's not something *you*, as a paying member, have any say in...
> 
> It does in a kind of creepy way seem like you are stalking and harassing me though...



You are using Tug, , without paying for it.. (because you are allowed to) and you resent Eric for saying so....

Why is that you cant accept that  Klebbas are using Wyndham points that they "didnt pay for" (or paid very little for on the secondary market)


----------



## ronparise

Eric B said:


> Troy, to be perfectly honest, I do not care if you pay to join or continue to enjoy the "free ride" of being a guest.  I have noticed a tendency in some posts to comment on others getting a "free ride" elsewhere and I find those to be in a bit of tension with each other.  Since my posts seem to bother you, I'll add you to my ignore list.


beat me to it


----------



## ronparise

scootr5 said:


> Especially if Wyndham was covering the cost of the points difference for the discounts and upgrades on the non-VIP eligible resale points.




there are next to no costs that Wyndham has to cover,, guest certs, and transaction fees  is all... The resorts get all their maintenance fees


----------



## ronparise

tschwa2 said:


> When wyndham resells the mega renters 700 million points, you will have 2000+ regular owners booking those points so no additional inventory will open up.
> 
> I guess you could purchase and pay Mf on those 700 million points and not book anything in order to allow more regular members to use their timeshares.




exactly right... its the same number of points chasing the same number of reservations


----------



## ronparise

Cyrus24 said:


> You are entitled to your own opinions but you are not entitled to your own facts.  EVERY owner has the exact same timeshare usage rights at 12AM Eastern, 13/10 months out.  NO one is preventing an owner from using their timeshare.


, and toyour point when Troy makes a reservation he is denying other owners the use of that unit at that time.


----------



## Cyrus24

ronparise said:


> , and toyour point when Troy makes a reservation he is denying other owners the use of that unit at that time.


I don't think he would see it that way.   LOL.


----------



## 55plus

ronparise said:


> The math isnt difficult,,  you you multiplied correctly.
> 6 X 67,000 does indeed equal  402000  just like 2x2 =4
> 
> Why do you think, 3rd grade arithmetic might not be real?


I find it amazing the someone would have over $400K in annual maintenance fees. That's something I can't phantom. I'm glad to see them go. They, along with other of that caliber were ruining it for owners who actually use their points for personal travel.


----------



## 55plus

ronparise said:


> exactly right... its the same number of points chasing the same number of reservations


But what is the likelihood those reservations will be made at the 13 month point? It's not likely, therefore allowing others to use those timeframes. What's happening is a good thing overall.


----------



## scootr5

ronparise said:


> there are next to no costs that Wyndham has to cover,, guest certs, and transaction fees  is all... The resorts get all their maintenance fees



I thought it had been stated in the past that Wyndham pays/covers the maintenance fees on those points though? For instance, the VIP owner makes the reservation at a 50% discount of points, the other 50% are covered by Wyndham developer owned points?


----------



## bnoble

Scott, that's my understanding too. So, there are no _direct_ costs to Wyndham, but there are _indirect_ costs in that they lose the use of those points for other purposes.


----------



## scootr5

bnoble said:


> Scott, that's my understanding too. So, there are no _direct_ costs to Wyndham, but there are _indirect_ costs in that they lose the use of those points for other purposes.



Thanks for making that sound clearer than I could express. The same would be true of the VIP upgrades I believe. If Wyndham had no more developer-owned points, I would be willing to bet those “benefits” would be eliminated.

I’m guessing those developer-owned points are also used to cover the cost of the party weekends, encore packages, and such.


----------



## HitchHiker71

tschwa2 said:


> When wyndham resells the mega renters 700 million points, you will have 2000+ regular owners booking those points so no additional inventory will open up.
> 
> I guess you could purchase and pay Mf on those 700 million points and not book anything in order to allow more regular members to use their timeshares.



The key difference in your scenario that everyone seems to conveniently overlook is that it would be 2000 real Wyndham owners using those 700 million points - as opposed to 700 million points consumed solely by 2000 renters. This is an undeniable factual statement - and there is not a single person that can refute it. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Eric B

HitchHiker71 said:


> The key difference in your scenario that everyone seems to conveniently overlook is that it would be 2000 real Wyndham owners using those 700 million points - as opposed to 700 million points consumed solely by renters. This is an undeniable factual statement - and there is not a single person that can refute it.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



I would say that it would be Wyndham owners using their rights to the time at the resort in both cases, though the rented ones are for a different use than the ones with an owner staying on a reservation made with their own points.  Wyndham has always had the right to set out restrictions in this regard and has done a poor job at it based on all available evidence.  I believe the latest effort only addresses the margins still.


----------



## Cyrus24

HitchHiker71 said:


> The key difference in your scenario that everyone seems to conveniently overlook is that it would be 2000 real Wyndham owners using those 700 million points - as opposed to 700 million points consumed solely by renters. This is an undeniable factual statement - and there is not a single person that can refute it.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


This is where the problem lies, semantics.  An owner, regardless of status 'consumes' their points, points they paid for, when they make a reservation.  A renter is paying to use the points that an owner consumes.

One of the issues that many owners have a problem with is that a renter is occupying a unit.  And, someone is, supposedly, being harmed by that.  Then translating that to mean that the owner doing the renting did something 'wrong'.  While I see the point, we need to quit vilifying owners who used points as they saw fit.  Loophole, or not, Wyndham has allowed renting.  The new rules will certainly reel in the financial gain from renting, but, renting will still exist, as long as GC's are allowed.  I've not heard much interest in eliminating GC's.  Is that the next target?


----------



## dgalati

Cyrus24 said:


> Yes, what define commercial activity?  If I'm given 15 GC and use 16 GC's, am I now a commercial activity.  Where will they draw the line?
> 
> 
> The change coming this month has real bite as it relates to anyone with resale points.  I only have 168K in resale which I'll probably get rid of as I can't see managing, what will seem like, 2 accounts long term.  It will just be a hassle.
> 
> Wyndham will buy them out and make them go away, OR, bleed them dry with Attorney Fees and MF's.


Without the ability to rent Wyndham will bleed them dry with the $33,500 in maintenance fees monthly.


----------



## Cyrus24

dgalati said:


> Without the ability to rent Wyndham will bleed them dry with the $33,500 in maintenance fees monthly.


Mostly agree.  They can still rent unless Wyndham freezes their account.  They may just be renting at a loss.


----------



## Braindead

VacayKat said:


> Ok, so help me out here. This person was sold the points and paid the MF yearly. They were not in arrears. How does Wyndham have to protect other owners from these folk who were ‘profiting at their expense’? And exactly how does someone renting out their legitimately gotten points hurt me, another owner who also has legitimate points. I honestly just do not grasp how someone renting their points harms me. If points are only sold that track to actual availability to rent, then it does not matter whether the owner or a guest uses the reservation, it’s legitimate.
> Please do not start a thread attacking me - help me actually understand in factual terms and examples how a renter hurts other owners. (As in, don’t say it is a fact unless you cite the evidence)





Eric B said:


> I'm pretty much aligned with that line of thinking.  There were things that went on in the past (pre-2016) where people got more points to use than they should have like getting the full value of a reservation returned to their accounts when canceling a discounted one; others have posted about somehow getting nearly unlimited points from Wyndham with no good basis by some other means.  But if they own the points and the MFs are paid, I don't see the issue in general.


What several fail to realize is when mega renters basically take over a resort ALL availability is gone. A mega renter takes over 90% of the units for a high demand time  they control their own upgrades. The mega renter cancels a 4 bedroom they have well over a 90% chance to the auto upgrade or have patterned when the cancelled unit comes back. That’s what most miss on equal chance at reservations. Mega renter cancels 4 bedroom PR unit at 60 days it‘s nearly 100% chance it’ll be their upgrade.

The mega renter has basically tied up the entire resort until inside the 60 day window. The average owner has already given up on that resort so choose a different resort to go to. The mega renter has cancelled & upgraded all the 3&4 bedroom units. So they cancel a non rented studio at 17 days out, what good is that for a family with kids?

Do mega renters basically take over resorts at times? It’s a fact yes they do & it has been reported by some here in this forum. A well known member basically took over a resort for Mardi Gras so if you wanted to stay there you had no other choice than to rent from them. Another member here reported another resort was around 95% renters for Thanksgiving. By controlling the upgrades it creates more points left for them to make more reservations than what their ownership supports.

Do you want 100 happy owners for a weekend or 1 mega renter?


----------



## Roger830

paxsarah said:


> Wyndham’s cancellation policy is quite generous. There is absolutely no reason an owner couldn’t take their best stab at vacation plans at 10 months, and cancel with full points returned anytime in the ensuing 9.5 months. It took me three tries to get my spring break booked for this year. I may have even had to buy a $19 reservation transaction in the process. It was completely worth it.



I'm with you on this with our fall trip (we're on vacation all year).

Booked at 10 months Sedona and Tucson because we had an airline voucher from last year.

Decided in the spring that a direct flight on AA to Dallas would be better with a drive to New Orleans, then San Antonio.

Didn't want to risk covid on the road after NO so canceled and booked two days in Midtown and picked up two days in a resort in New Hampshire the end of September.


----------



## Eric B

Braindead said:


> What several fail to realize is when mega renters basically take over a resort ALL availability is gone. A mega renter takes over 90% of the units for a high demand time  they control their own upgrades. The mega renter cancels a 4 bedroom they have well over a 90% chance to the auto upgrade or have patterned when the cancelled unit comes back. That’s what most miss on equal chance at reservations. Mega renter cancels 4 bedroom PR unit at 60 days it‘s nearly 100% chance it’ll be their upgrade.
> 
> The mega renter has basically tied up the entire resort until inside the 60 day window. The average owner has already given up on that resort so choose a different resort to go to. The mega renter has cancelled & upgraded all the 3&4 bedroom units. So they cancel a non rented studio at 17 days out, what good is that for a family with kids?
> 
> Do mega renters basically take over resorts at times? It’s a fact yes they do & it has been reported by some here in this forum. A well known member basically took over a resort for Mardi Gras so if you wanted to stay there you had no other choice than to rent from them. Another member here reported another resort was around 95% renters for Thanksgiving. By controlling the upgrades it creates more points left for them to make more reservations than what their ownership supports.
> 
> Do you want 100 happy owners for a weekend or 1 mega renter?



Couldn't make a guess as to whether that really happens from one megarenter or many all shooting for the same desirable stays if it happens.  I thought the autoupgrade change was supposed to address that possibility.  What I really want is a fair playing field for owners to use their ownership however they want to - letting folks rent out stays booked away from where they own seems to me to be part of the problem.  That’s fundamentally allowing rental of the exchange system.  The problem is that Wyndham set things up that way, and it’s awfully difficult to change that underlying structure, especially when you have trusts in their like CWA that muddy the waters.  Maybe the right answer is to allow only rentals of full price stays booked in ARP.  I’m not too sure, but it’s pretty apparent that Wyndham didn’t make good planning decisions to support being as large a player as they’ve become.  Hopefully they can figure out a way to arrange things that doesn’t hurt all the folks that their sales teams set up doing things some find questionable and annoying the little people that aren’t megarenters but own hybrid accounts.  I feel like collateral damage in their war on renting, though I must admit I still don’t think it’s much of a difference for me.


----------



## troy12n

VacayKat said:


> Ok, so help me out here. This person was sold the points and paid the MF yearly.



See, this is where you were wrong. *Wyndham* didn't sell them the points. 

We don't know the details, but i'm going out on a limb and say that, at most, they bought somewhere in the neighborhood of 1 million retail points. At the outside. 1.4 million points. At the most. 

Depending on when they bought, they could have gone platinum for as few as ~150k points back when Wyndham allowed unlimited PICS. We don't have access to the discovery documents of their actual ownership, but let's be generous and say they paid for 1 million points, retail. Then they bought something on the order of 80 million more resale points for what, a few thousand dollars? And profited on them. 

Yes, they kept up with MF. But don't be intellectually dishonest and say that *Wyndham* sold them those points... because they didn't.


----------



## dgalati

tschwa2 said:


> When wyndham resells the mega renters 700 million points, you will have 2000+ regular owners booking those points so no additional inventory will open up.
> 
> I guess you could purchase and pay Mf on those 700 million points and not book anything in order to allow more regular members to use their timeshares.


I think there's a better chance that he becomes a member of TUG first.


----------



## Cyrus24

Braindead said:


> Do mega renters basically take over resorts at times? It’s a fact yes they do & it has been reported by some here in this forum. A well known member basically took over a resort for Mardi Gras so if you wanted to stay there you had no other choice than to rent from them. Another member here reported another resort was around 95% renters for Thanksgiving. By controlling the upgrades it creates more points left for them to make more reservations than what their ownership supports.


Agree.  Wyndham will slow this down by not allowing discounts and by not giving upgrades on resale points.  But, what is to prevent a mega-renter from taking all 4br's at a resort with their resale points and then booking a bunch of smaller units using the Developer points so that they can grab upgrades when the 4br's get cancelled?  I only see 2 options, blacking out resorts during high demand weeks/weekends, or dramatically scaling back on the number of GC's an owner can use and/or purchase.

These mega renters are savvy, they will find a way to earn an income from their points unless Wyndham clamps down, HARD, on either the actual owner running the commercial business or by making changes that hurt those who like to use GC's for family/friends (not as a business).


----------



## troy12n

Eventually it's going to come down to a hard limit on the number of GC's allowed, period... this will give owners the flexibility to invite guests or do a small number of rentals to cover MF if they want, but kick the mega renter wanna be travel agents to the curb, or the gutter, or wherever they belong


----------



## dgalati

ronparise said:


> The math isnt difficult,,  you you multiplied correctly.
> 6 X 67,000 does indeed equal  402000  just like 2x2 =4
> 
> Why do you think, 3rd grade arithmetic might not be real?


Ron Wyndham sells a lot of points putting a spin on simple math. How many owners would of never bought if they understood 3rd grade math?


----------



## Cyrus24

troy12n said:


> See, this is where you were wrong. *Wyndham* didn't sell them the points.


*Who Cares?  *Someone bought the points from Wyndham.  And, they are paying MF's.  The points are theirs to use as they see fit, within the guidelines of the program and/or within the allowed limits set by Wyndham.


----------



## Cyrus24

troy12n said:


> but kick the mega renter wanna be travel agents to the curb, or the gutter, or wherever they belong


I'm sorry, mega renters are real people too.  They need not be kicked to the 'gutter'.  The rules are changing, let up on the hate.


----------



## am1

Braindead said:


> What several fail to realize is when mega renters basically take over a resort ALL availability is gone. A mega renter takes over 90% of the units for a high demand time  they control their own upgrades. The mega renter cancels a 4 bedroom they have well over a 90% chance to the auto upgrade or have patterned when the cancelled unit comes back. That’s what most miss on equal chance at reservations. Mega renter cancels 4 bedroom PR unit at 60 days it‘s nearly 100% chance it’ll be their upgrade.
> 
> The mega renter has basically tied up the entire resort until inside the 60 day window. The average owner has already given up on that resort so choose a different resort to go to. The mega renter has cancelled & upgraded all the 3&4 bedroom units. So they cancel a non rented studio at 17 days out, what good is that for a family with kids?
> 
> Do mega renters basically take over resorts at times? It’s a fact yes they do & it has been reported by some here in this forum. A well known member basically took over a resort for Mardi Gras so if you wanted to stay there you had no other choice than to rent from them. Another member here reported another resort was around 95% renters for Thanksgiving. By controlling the upgrades it creates more points left for them to make more reservations than what their ownership supports.
> 
> Do you want 100 happy owners for a weekend or 1 mega renter?



But everyone had the same opportunity to book.  I took over Skyline Towers for New Years before.  I think over 100 rooms.  I would book the 4 bedroom presidential and I think it was 4 3 bedroom presidentials every weekend when no one used their 13 or 11 month ARP.  Even prime weeks I would book 3 nights then when allowed cancel and book just Fri - Sun.  I would book a lot of Bonnet Creek all 4 bedroom presidentials I could get a hold of.  When PR would release their units to the masses I would scramble to free up points and book everything I could.  Thankfully would not have to hold it for 10 months as I would with normal inventory.  When Tower 6 was being renovated I recall Wyndham must had decided they would finish early and released the whole Tower starting Thanksgiving week.  I remember booking everything I could.  Quite possibly my highlight of the business.  

But lets remember everyone had an equal chance at it.  I do not see any other way to make it equitable.  Equal opportunity not equal outcome.

I have suggested before that Wyndham should have an extreme prime week at resorts.  New Years, Christmas, Thanksgiving, Bike week, race week, easter, July 4, Mardi Gras.   Another option is to go back to more of a fixed week model where one can purchase prime weeks at a premium but at so many months if not reserved it is released to everyone  and the owner can use points to book where they want.  But Wyndham seems to have gone the other way with CWA.  I guess its easier to tell every owner they can book Bike Week instead of only being able to sell it to one person.


----------



## 55plus

VacayKat said:


> Ok, so help me out here. This person was sold the points and paid the MF yearly. They were not in arrears. How does Wyndham have to protect other owners from these folk who were ‘profiting at their expense’? And exactly how does someone renting out their legitimately gotten points hurt me, another owner who also has legitimate points. I honestly just do not grasp how someone renting their points harms me. If points are only sold that track to actual availability to rent, then it does not matter whether the owner or a guest uses the reservation, it’s legitimate.
> Please do not start a thread attacking me - help me actually understand in factual terms and examples how a renter hurts other owners. (As in, don’t say it is a fact unless you cite the evidence)


Mega renters using *hundreds to thousands of guest certificates *at high demand resorts during high demand times hurts regular owners. What do you not understand?


----------



## troy12n

Cyrus24 said:


> *Who Cares?  *Someone bought the points from Wyndham.  And, they are paying MF's.  The points are theirs to use as they see fit, within the guidelines of the program and/or with the allowed limits set by Wyndham.



It matters because you are insinuating that *Wyndham* sold them the points, and by doing so, *Wyndham* must have known that they could not use that number of points for personal reasons and therefore had a *duty* to not make the sale, to preserve the system for owners, not for them to run a quasi business with the points. 

You can't both sides this argument... 

Wyndham has no control over the resale market, other than the ROFR, which until recently has apparently never been exercised.


----------



## dgalati

Braindead said:


> What several fail to realize is when mega renters basically take over a resort ALL availability is gone. A mega renter takes over 90% of the units for a high demand time  they control their own upgrades. The mega renter cancels a 4 bedroom they have well over a 90% chance to the auto upgrade or have patterned when the cancelled unit comes back. That’s what most miss on equal chance at reservations. Mega renter cancels 4 bedroom PR unit at 60 days it‘s nearly 100% chance it’ll be their upgrade.
> 
> The mega renter has basically tied up the entire resort until inside the 60 day window. The average owner has already given up on that resort so choose a different resort to go to. The mega renter has cancelled & upgraded all the 3&4 bedroom units. So they cancel a non rented studio at 17 days out, what good is that for a family with kids?
> 
> Do mega renters basically take over resorts at times? It’s a fact yes they do & it has been reported by some here in this forum. A well known member basically took over a resort for Mardi Gras so if you wanted to stay there you had no other choice than to rent from them. Another member here reported another resort was around 95% renters for Thanksgiving. By controlling the upgrades it creates more points left for them to make more reservations than what their ownership supports.
> 
> Do you want 100 happy owners for a weekend or 1 mega renter?


Lets look at it from Wyndham's sales perspective. One happy owner may give them a 5% chance at possibly buying again. Where 100 renters give them at least a 20% chance of a sale. Wyndham has some culpability in the nonsense that was taking place. Especially if they converted 20 of the rentals into new owners. Lets not forget sales sold this strategy as a way to upsell owners the VIP benefits.


----------



## Cyrus24

troy12n said:


> It matters because you are insinuating that *Wyndham* sold them the points,


I never said that.  Nor did the person that you originally quoted.


----------



## troy12n

am1 said:


> But everyone had the same opportunity to book.
> 
> But lets remember everyone had an equal chance at it.  I do not see any other way to make it equitable.  Equal opportunity not equal outcome.



Not everyone has the ability to sit around like a hawk at midnight at the 13 or 10 month mark, watching 24 hours a day. 

Some of us have jobs, real jobs, not "fake travel agent" jobs... 

We pay taxes on that income too... Think maybe Uncle Sam needs to take a look at some of these businesses. That would get interesting fast. 

Wyndham knows all your names... you think maybe a little birdie could slip the IRS a little note? Maybe some of you not poke the bear.


----------



## Braindead

Eric B said:


> Couldn't make a guess as to whether that really happens from one megarenter or many all shooting for the same desirable stays if it happens.  I thought the autoupgrade change was supposed to address that possibility.  What I really want is a fair playing field for owners to use their ownership however they want to - letting folks rent out stays booked away from where they own seems to me to be part of the problem.  That’s fundamentally allowing rental of the exchange system.  The problem is that Wyndham set things up that way, and it’s awfully difficult to change that underlying structure, especially when you have trusts in their like CWA that muddy the waters.  Maybe the right answer is to allow only rentals of full price stays booked in ARP.  I’m not too sure, but it’s pretty apparent that Wyndham didn’t make good planning decisions to support being as large a player as they’ve become.  Hopefully they can figure out a way to arrange things that doesn’t hurt all the folks that their sales teams set up doing things some find questionable and annoying the little people that aren’t megarenters but own hybrid accounts.  I feel like collateral damage in their war on renting, though I must admit I still don’t think it’s much of a difference for me.


I’ve heard that Kleppas who filed this lawsuit liked Glacier Canyon for rentals. 60-70 million points go along ways for the Thanksgiving 3 day weekend. I believe it was Wes that reported the 94% rented Thanksgiving weekend at GC. So what if Kleppas didn’t have all 94% but had a friend with the rest. How do you control what GC rents for Thanksgiving? Create your own monopoly & they did. We know from eBay that Kleppas owned GC, CWA & PR contracts so they had ARP for all types of units at GC at more than the 10 month mark. You don’t remember who Mr. Mardi Gras is?

Just to say this won’t change your ownership is pretty short sided in IMHO. Are we all & Wyndham only looking out for ourselves or the bigger picture?

I still ask do you want 100 happy owners for a weekend or 1 mega renter? Of course there will still be several hundred owners saying there’s no availability but the final number is still 100 less than in the past!!


----------



## troy12n

Cyrus24 said:


> I never said that.


 
You very much insinuated it. Otherwise the point you were trying to make is irrelevant.


----------



## dgalati

55plus said:


> Mega renters using *hundreds to thousands of guest certificates *at high demand resorts during high demand times hurts regular owners. What do you not understand?


Now compound this when the same is done using resale points with VIP discounts and free upgrades. 50% discounts take out double the number of rooms available.


----------



## Cyrus24

troy12n said:


> You very much insinuated it. Otherwise the point you were trying to make is irrelevant.


You need to reread the posts you quote and the comments you make.  You are blinded by your hate.


----------



## troy12n

Braindead said:


> I’ve heard that Kleppas who filed this lawsuit liked Glacier Canyon for rentals. 60-70 million points go along ways for the Thanksgiving 3 day weekend. I believe it was Wes that reported the 94% rented Thanksgiving weekend at GC. So what if Kleppas didn’t have all 94% but had a friend with the rest. How do you control what GC rents for Thanksgiving? Create your own monopoly & they did. We know from eBay that Kleppas owned GC, CWA & PR contracts so they had ARP for all types of units at GC at more than the 10 month mark. You don’t remember who Mr. Mardi Gras is?
> 
> Just to say this won’t change your ownership is pretty short sided in IMHO. Are we all & Wyndham only looking out for ourselves or the bigger picture?
> 
> *I still ask do you want 100 happy owners for a weekend or 1 mega renter?* Of course there will still be several hundred owners saying there’s no availability but the final number is still 100 less than in the past!!



It's very obvious that yes, the mega renters are a very special snowflake kind of greedy, selfish person who wants everything for themselves. Many of them have even said as such. They are literally bragging about it in this thread and others... 

I'm gonna let you guess who is gonna have the last laugh...


----------



## VacayKat

troy12n said:


> See, this is where you were wrong. *Wyndham* didn't sell them the points.
> 
> Yes, they kept up with MF. But don't be intellectually dishonest and say that *Wyndham* sold them those points... because they didn't.


 This argument is not accurate. EVERY purchase has to be approved by Wyndham. I literally did not say they purchased developer points. I’m not stupid. But if Wyndham approves of the transaction, they condone it, and therefore your point is just about not addressing the question I posed.


----------



## troy12n

Cyrus24 said:


> You need to reread the posts you quote and the comments you make.  You are blinded by your hate.



I'm a guest, I don't have hate...


----------



## Cyrus24

am1 said:


> But lets remember everyone had an equal chance at it. I do not see any other way to make it equitable. Equal opportunity not equal outcome.


Most rational statement I've seen today.


----------



## VacayKat

55plus said:


> Mega renters using *hundreds to thousands of guest certificates *at high demand resorts during high demand times hurts regular owners. What do you not understand?


I do not understand how this hurts me- please explain.

Edited to add: If it is guest certificates that you insinuate are hurting me, then my hawaii family vacation at Christmas with three rooms is hurting other owners. If this is the case then, please explain why more than one room is ever allowed at high demand resorts at high demand times.


----------



## Braindead

Cyrus24 said:


> Agree.  Wyndham will slow this down by not allowing discounts and by not giving upgrades on resale points.  But, what is to prevent a mega-renter from taking all 4br's at a resort with their resale points and then booking a bunch of smaller units using the Developer points so that they can grab upgrades when the 4br's get cancelled?  I only see 2 options, blacking out resorts during high demand weeks/weekends, or dramatically scaling back on the number of GC's an owner can use and/or purchase.
> 
> These mega renters are savvy, they will find a way to earn an income from their points unless Wyndham clamps down, HARD, on either the actual owner running the commercial business or by making changes that hurt those who like to use GC's for family/friends (not as a business).


I would have to go back & dig out an old post, but I posted that the way to stop rentals is to control GCs. No GCs on discounted & or upgraded reservations no matter if the reservation was made outside or inside the 60 day window. Give less free ones & raise the cost of additional ones drastically maybe $500 or even a $1,000. Say VIPP gets 5 free & you can only buy 2 more then that’s it for the year.


----------



## Lisa P

tschwa2 said:


> When wyndham resells the mega renters 700 million points, you will have 2000+ regular owners booking those points so no additional inventory will open up.


In theory perhaps, but not in practice. What are the chances that all 2000 "regular owners" will book prime time at 13 months out vs. a business person (megarenter)? I think it's realistic to say that a diverse group of 2000 owners are far more likely to leave availability at the 10 month mark for other owners than megarenters. JMO.



davidvel said:


> If someone owns a gazillion points and uses them all, are they "*preventing regular owners from using their timeshare?"*
> If so, how, and is that OK by your standards?


I believe so - please see above (and below).



davidvel said:


> If someone owns a gazillion points and gives them away to family and friends, are they "*preventing regular owners from using their timeshare?"* ... Is it only when they rent weeks out that they are miraculously "*preventing regular owners from using their timeshare?"*


This is so rife for abuse that it would need to have some kind of limitations set... only so many concurrent and consecutive reservations with guest certs per year. It's just not realistic to say that hundreds or thousands of reservations are all being gifted to family and friends. Utterly silly.



VacayKat said:


> Ok, so help me out here. ... I honestly just do not grasp how someone renting their points harms me.


It doesn't... unless you were sold a product that purports to be for _owner families' _vacations but you repeatedly find that there's _no availability_ at the 10 month mark... only to see literally dozens of rental ads posted online by individuals (not EH). It's frustrating. These are not units being gifted to friends and family.



Braindead said:


> What several fail to realize is when mega renters basically take over a resort ALL availability is gone. A mega renter takes over 90% of the units for a high demand time  they control their own upgrades. ... Do mega renters basically take over resorts at times? It’s a fact yes they do & it has been reported by some here in this forum.


This.


----------



## 55plus

Wyndham enforcing the no commercial activity policy is the best thing they've done since mega renters came about. VIP owners lost benefits over the years because of mega renters. Over the years owners lost out on hundreds of thousands to maybe millions of reservations because of mega renters. Mega renters' businesses are getting hurt because of the changes, but that's part of doing business. This is a good example of the saying, the bigger you are the harder you fall. On the bright side, the regular owners will benefit from the changes.


----------



## troy12n

I'm sure these mega renters will be able to pull themselves up from their bootstraps, or whatever the narrative is...


----------



## 55plus

VacayKat said:


> I do not understand how this hurts me- please explain.
> 
> Edited to add: If it is guest certificates that you insinuate are hurting me, then my hawaii family vacation at Christmas with three rooms is hurting other owners. If this is the case then, please explain why more than one room is ever allowed at high demand resorts at high demand times.



It's not owners using points for family, it's the hundreds to thousands of guest certificates being used by an owner (mega renter) for commerce that hurts regular owners. It's simple: if mega renters take over a prime resort for commerce, other owners can't use that resort for personal travel.


----------



## ronparise

troy12n said:


> Wish these people would just go away... they had their free ride. Time to figure out some other scam.





Cyrus24 said:


> It's not and that is not the point.  As we all know, while not defending a mega-renter, they were not taking a free ride, as you frequently contend.  You have had the same participation rights that they have had.   On TUG, you are truly participating, big time, for free.



of course troys freeloading on Tug doesnt prevent others from using and enjoying Tug... He should also know that a reservation made by an owner  with points owned by that same owner and occupied by that owner or his  freeloading brother in law or a guest that paid him for the use,  does not prevent any other owners use and enjoyment of the Wyndham resorts either


----------



## dgalati

QUOTE="Cyrus24, post: 2647575, member: 96607"]
Most rational statement I've seen today.
[/QUOTE]
I found it much easier and cheaper to just rent from a guy like @am1. No need to pay a sunk cost for VIP, be burdened with paying maintenance fees or put in count less hours looking for availability to show up. Now with changes I may have to hold onto the 400k of points purchased recently. Time will tell if rental rates continue to be a bargain or if owning is a cheaper way to travel.Either way Worldmark is a much better deal IMHO.


----------



## Cyrus24

Braindead said:


> I would have to go back & dig out an old post, but I posted that the way to stop rentals is to control GCs. No GCs on discounted & or upgraded reservations no matter if the reservation was made outside or inside the 60 day window. Give less free ones & raise the cost of additional ones drastically maybe $500 or even a $1,000. Say VIPP gets 5 free & you can only buy 2 more then that’s it for the year.


I'd hate that as a final solution to the rental 'problem', but, it is possible.  Hopefully, this developer/resale bucket solution being rolled out will slow renting  down enough to satisfy all the constituents.


----------



## buckor

Here’s an honest question to the rental business scenario: if Wyndham truly is against owners renting their points, should owners be allowed to rent via Extra Holidays?

IMO, this is where Wyndham loses some of its traction: “no, you cannot rent unless you rent through us allowing us to earn a commission.” There cannot be a double standard. Either renting is okay, or it’s not.

I have been a part of many “updates” where the sales person used renting “extra” points to cover MFs as a sales tactic. We all know what the official position of Wyndham is, however, when a sales person contradicts that official position and encourages you to make reservations at high demand resorts and list them for rent on EH, isn’t that a conflict of interest, at a minimum?

I am enjoying reading everyone’s thoughts on this. I will be sticking around to see what everyone has to say.

Blessings!


----------



## Braindead

[/QUOTE]
@dgalati -I found it much easier and cheaper to just rent from a guy like @am1. No need to pay a sunk cost for VIP, be burdened with paying maintenance fees or put in count less hours looking for availability to show up.
[/QUOTE]
I would rather see a happy owner posting that they got that reservation instead of your nonstop bragging about that reservation in every thread


----------



## Lisa P

Braindead said:


> No GCs on discounted & or upgraded reservations no matter if the reservation was made outside or inside the 60 day window. Give less free ones & raise the cost of additional ones drastically maybe $500 or even a $1,000. Say VIPP gets 5 free & you can only by 2 more then that’s it for the year.


Maybe that's a reasonable limitation. Only so many GC's permitted per year on reservations made during Advance or Standard Reservation Periods with a more generous amount available for reservations made within the Express Reservation Period, and unlimited for VIP owner reservations booked during the Express window... maybe also add a cap on the percentage of any resorts' rooms which may have a GC added during prime holidays, especially if there's no concurrent owner reservation for the entire duration of the GC reservation. Cancelling the owner reservation should automatically cancel the GC reservation(s) as well. IMO, owners who abuse the rules (ex., cancelling an owner reservation after the Guest has checked in) may risk losing GC privileges for a year. That may sound harsh but owners who genuinely need to cancel their trip at the last minute ought to understand the risk and let their owner reservation go to waste. JMO.


----------



## chapjim

Eric B said:


> Just in case I forget on Tuesday, Happy Anniversary of the day you joined TUG as a guest!



And after that one short year, he now knows everything.


----------



## troy12n

chapjim said:


> And after that one short year, he now knows everything.



Because being a member of TUG obviously conveys knowledge of ownership of timeshare systems... 

If anything, i've learned that TUG, in all honesty is a place where some mega renters shared some really bad advice which largely negatively affects normal owners.

This place seemed to in fact be an education forum for prospective mega renters. People like Ron were your pied piper...

I've been a timeshare owner a lot longer than i've been a member of TUG, so try again.

Edit: excuse me... a *guest* of TUG


----------



## VacayKat

55plus said:


> It's not owners using points for family, it's the hundreds to thousands of guest certificates being used by an owner (mega renter) for commerce that hurts regular owners. It's simple: if mega renters take over a prime resort for commerce, other owners can't use that resort for personal travel.


While I do not see the difference, are you suggesting that rentals because they are commerce are thus hurting? I have never come across a resort I could not book if I was booking >6 months, and almost always can I find something, even within 2 weeks (2021 may and june were exceptions). 
What I feel like you are suggesting is that if a rental is to occur it can not happen if someone wants to go there with their family. I think if that is the case then folks who think like this will never be happy as someone will always be renting something to regain some of the MF they pay.


----------



## Cyrus24

buckor said:


> I am enjoying reading everyone’s thoughts on this. I will be sticking around to see what everyone has to say.


With the exception of a few hate filled posts, these mega=renter discussions are interesting.

At the end of the day, the only ones who lose with this most recent change are the mega-renters.  The rest of us, Resale only owners and regular/VIP owners with just a few (less than 1MM) resale points are not really hurt.  I feel bad for the mega=renters as I know that they were misled by sales.  Weren't we all, at one point.  For the most part, they seem to be accepting the fate, gracefully.  I respect that.


----------



## dgalati

Braindead said:


> I would have to go back & dig out an old post, but I posted that the way to stop rentals is to control GCs. No GCs on discounted & or upgraded reservations no matter if the reservation was made outside or inside the 60 day window. Give less free ones & raise the cost of additional ones drastically maybe $500 or even a $1,000. Say VIPP gets 5 free & you can only buy 2 more then that’s it for the year.


Yea but that would be taking away some of the promised privileges of buying up to VIPP. I'm sure that wouldn't make many VIPP owners happy. Suggesting only 5 free GC's sounds as ludicrous as when someone suggested the elimination of resale points with VIP discounts a few years back. You maybe onto something but a few VIP owners may think you lost your marbles.


----------



## buckor

Cyrus24 said:


> With the exception of a few hate filled posts, these mega=renter discussions are interesting.
> 
> At the end of the day, the only ones who lose with this most recent change are the mega-renters. The rest of us, Resale only owners and regular/VIP owners with just a few (less than 1MM) resale points are not really hurt. I feel bad for the mega=renters as I know that they were misled by sales. Weren't we all, at one point. For the most part, they seem to be accepting the fate, gracefully. I respect that.



100% agreed!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## VacayKat

Lisa P said:


> Maybe that's a reasonable limitation. Only so many GC's permitted per year on reservations made during Advance or Standard Reservation Periods with a more generous amount available for reservations made within the Express Reservation Period, and unlimited for VIP owner reservations booked during the Express window... maybe also add a cap on the percentage of any resorts' rooms which may have a GC added during prime holidays, especially if there's no concurrent owner reservation for the entire duration of the GC reservation. Cancelling the owner reservation should automatically cancel the GC reservation(s) as well. IMO, owners who abuse the rules (ex., cancelling an owner reservation after the Guest has checked in) may risk losing GC privileges for a year. That may sound harsh but owners who genuinely need to cancel their trip at the last minute ought to understand the risk and let their owner reservation go to waste. JMO.


I have to say as someone who gave Wyndham a shit load of money changes to letting friends and family and the odd renter use our points would cause me a lot of irritation.


----------



## troy12n

So legit question. 

This issue seems to be pretty polarizing. 

On one side we have people against the mega renters. The rationale (right or wrong) is that mega renters are hurting regular owners ability to use the timeshare, and book. Especially at high demand resorts.

On the other side, we seem to have people pro-mega renter. 

On this side of the camp, we have people who ARE the mega renters themselves, who have a vested interest in keeping the status quo
Then we have another group of people... i'm not sure exactly what their angle is. Why they support mega renters. They have no vested interest in the issue. And in fact an argument can be made that by supporting mega renters, they are in fact acting against their own best interests.

So... what's the deal? Why support mega renters?


----------



## troy12n

VacayKat said:


> I have to say as someone who gave Wyndham a shit load of money changes to letting *friends and family* and the odd renter use our points would cause me a lot of irritation.



how many *hundreds* of friends do you have? 

This gets back to the intellectual _*dishonesty *_being propagated here by one side of the argument...


----------



## Lisa P

buckor said:


> if Wyndham truly is against owners renting their points, should owners be allowed to rent via Extra Holidays?


I don't think rentals should be permitted during prime season or major holidays, by any avenue including EH. JMO.


----------



## troy12n

For the record, platinum get what, like 18-20 GC's for free. I'm fine for letting that be. Just eliminate paid GC's completely. 

Problem solved.


----------



## VacayKat

troy12n said:


> how many *hundreds* of friends do you have?
> 
> This gets back to the intellectual _*dishonesty *_being propagated here by one side of the argument...


OMG, why do you always ignore context.


----------



## Cyrus24

troy12n said:


> So... what's the deal? Why support mega renters?


I respect them.  I feel bad for what this change is doing to them.  Nothing wrong with a little compassion.

At the end of the day, with this most recent bucket change all, except the mega=renters, will be better off.


----------



## Eric B

Lisa P said:


> I don't think rentals should be permitted during prime season or major holidays, by any avenue including EH. JMO.



What if it was a converted week 51 reserved during ARP for the underlying week?  I’m not really willing to try to suggest hard and fast rules about using something someone owns.  Things they exchange into are a different matter.  I think it would be more complicated for a week 51 in CWA, of course, but shouldn’t be impossible to figure out.


----------



## Cyrus24

VacayKat said:


> OMG, why do you always ignore context.


He does exactly that.  And, he ignores who actually writes what.  I've been accused of a lot of misdeeds by the guest who ignores (a lot).


----------



## am1

troy12n said:


> Not everyone has the ability to sit around like a hawk at midnight at the 13 or 10 month mark, watching 24 hours a day.
> 
> Some of us have jobs, real jobs, not "fake travel agent" jobs...
> 
> We pay taxes on that income too... Think maybe Uncle Sam needs to take a look at some of these businesses. That would get interesting fast.
> 
> Wyndham knows all your names... you think maybe a little birdie could slip the IRS a little note? Maybe some of you not poke the bear.



But everyone could do that if they choose to.  And because you cant an I did is why I was able to make it work.  At 13/10 months out I had no idea who wanted to travel to Bonnet Creek for Christmas or Las Vegas for New Years but I was sure that hundreds of thousands would be.  I just had to find them.  No easy job as a low percentage of people knew/know about renting on timeshares on ebay or elsewhere.  But I found enough of them to work to make my fake travel agent job work. 

The important thing is the money I made was real as well as the happiness the renters got from their vacation.  

Sadly the taxes I paid were real as well.  But I learned quick to move to a place with low taxes. So in that regard it was a pleasure to pay for the lesson, even if it was costly.


----------



## paxsarah

Lisa P said:


> Only so many GC's permitted per year on reservations made during Advance or Standard Reservation Periods with a more generous amount available for reservations made within the Express Reservation Period, and unlimited for VIP owner reservations booked during the Express window...


I have to say, I don’t understand this at all. If I’m booking a big trip for friends and family, I’m planning way far ahead. There’s no way I’m waiting for the dregs during the express period. I don’t know what type of owner this sort of proposal would benefit, but it’s not me (modest points, non-VIP).


----------



## chapjim

troy12n said:


> Because being a member of TUG obviously conveys knowledge of ownership of timeshare systems...
> 
> If anything, i've learned that TUG, in all honesty is a place where some mega renters shared some really bad advice which largely negatively affects normal owners.
> 
> This place seemed to in fact be an education forum for prospective mega renters. People like Ron were your pied piper...
> 
> I've been a timeshare owner a lot longer than i've been a member of TUG, so try again.
> 
> Edit: excuse me... a *guest* of TUG



Thanks for helping make my point.


----------



## buckor

troy12n said:


> So legit question.
> 
> This issue seems to be pretty polarizing.
> …
> So... what's the deal? Why support mega renters?



At one point I considered buying points strictly to use for rentals. That faded away as I saw Wyndham lock the accounts of “mega renters” for months while audits and negotiations took place.

I don’t “support” mega renters. I do, however, support people purchasing a product and being able to use it as designed and as they were told they could. It seems like a lot of that was Wyndham’s issue with the website and what the backend databases could tell the website. Obviously they are moving past some of those limitations.

I live in a very desirable summer “resort” area. Anyone is allowed to purchase a home here and use it for whatever they want, assuming the neighborhood does not have any restrictions on its use. 90% of the homes where I live are used for second homes/vacation homes/rentals. Unfortunately, that has put a lot of upward pressure on real estate prices, even before COVID (it’s been REALLY crazy since COVID hit). 

None of these owners are doing anything wrong. They purchased a product (a home) that they have the right to use how they want, within any guidelines that may be set.

Where i would disagree with things is if one set of owners had to abide by one set of rules while another set had to abide by a different set of rules. A local businessman, who sits on the town council, wants to change the rules for renting homes in the area so that people have to rent for 30 days or longer, unless you stay in a hotel or hotel property. Well, he owns the 5 Star hotel in town and all its other properties. He would be able to rent his houses short-term because they technically are part of a hotel property. That I don’t agree with.

Wyndham has a system. It is up to them to enforce that system without disenfranchising owners who bought into Wyndham expecting to use their system for personal use but now cannot due to a handful of people that Wyndham cannot seem to “control.”

So, am I FOR mega renters? Not directly. I am for Wyndham owners using the system as Wyndham had designed. Am I against mega renters? Not directly. Shouldn’t any owner who wants be able to rent points they aren’t going to be able to personally use? I realize there are technicalities and intricacies I am glossing over. My point, however, is that if someone buys a product they should be able to use that product as designed…in our case, reserving rooms at resorts with points purchased, whether retail (with “club benefits”) or resale (without those benefits).

Blessings!


----------



## buckor

Lisa P said:


> I don't think rentals should be permitted during prime season or major holidays, by any avenue including EH. JMO.



And that would be something I could support, especially if it spelled out by Wyndham clearly.

There is a potential problem: I’ve booked multiple rooms at resorts during Christmas, etc, for my family as well as extended family and friends. How does Wyndham differentiate between my extended family and friends that need GCs vs someone I rented to?

Not trying to argue (at all). Truly trying to think of the solution to this problem.

Blessings!


----------



## VacayKat

paxsarah said:


> I have to say, I don’t understand this at all. If I’m booking a big trip for friends and family, I’m planning way far ahead. There’s no way I’m waiting for the dregs during the express period. I don’t know what type of owner this sort of proposal would benefit, but it’s not me (modest points, non-VIP).


Exactly why changes to it would irritate me.


----------



## ronparise

55plus said:


> I find it amazing the someone would have over $400K in annual maintenance fees. That's something I can't phantom. I'm glad to see them go. They, along with other of that caliber were ruining it for owners who actually use their points for personal travel.



You say that (ruining it for owners)... But I fail to see how someone using  another condo at the resort, ruins the vacation of another person in another condo




HitchHiker71 said:


> The key difference in your scenario that everyone seems to conveniently overlook is that it would be 2000 real Wyndham owners using those 700 million points - as opposed to 700 million points consumed solely by renters. This is an undeniable factual statement - and there is not a single person that can refute it.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



No one is questioning the fact that if the megarenters points were owned by someone else, someone else would be staying in the condos. Whats being questioned is the relevance. Why do you care who is in the condo next to you. 

What I hear is a country club kind of attitude. You see renters as someone "less than" riff-raff perhaps. Imagine how the people that own a 100% interest in their condos at Reunion or Daytona for example, must feel about folks like us that only have a less than 2% share staying next door


----------



## Lisa P

dgalati said:


> Lets look at it from Wyndham's sales perspective. One happy owner may give them a 5% chance at possibly buying again. Where 100 renters give them at least a 20% chance of a sale.


I've never heard that guests/renters visiting on a GC would = a 20% chance of a sale. I've always read that the great majority of developer sales of Wyndham points were actually sold to existing owners. With this idea, the chance of making a developer sale to 100 vacationing owners is higher than the chance of making a sale to 100 vacationing renters, who got on vacation cheaply through renting a discounted stay from a megarenter.



dgalati said:


> I found it much easier and cheaper to just rent from a guy like @am1. No need to pay a sunk cost for VIP, be burdened with paying maintenance fees or put in count less hours looking for availability to show up.


Right to my point, above. When people are renting cheaply, they do not present a great sales opportunity to Wyndham.



paxsarah said:


> I have to say, I don’t understand this at all. If I’m booking a big trip for friends and family, I’m planning way far ahead. There’s no way I’m waiting for the dregs during the express period. I don’t know what type of owner this sort of proposal would benefit, but it’s not me (modest points, non-VIP).


This is why I said "_only so many_" GCs for reservations made during ARP/SRP: I did _not_ say to eliminate them. People still need to be able to reserve some trips with family and friends in prime time. But there needs to be some kind of limitation on how many, to reduce the abuse of the system by people who've bought mega-millions of points for the purpose of exploiting the reservation system to make money, while locking out regular "average Joe" owners from prime resort stays.


----------



## dgalati

Lisa P said:


> Maybe that's a reasonable limitation. Only so many GC's permitted per year on reservations made during Advance or Standard Reservation Periods with a more generous amount available for reservations made within the Express Reservation Period, and unlimited for VIP owner reservations booked during the Express window... maybe also add a cap on the percentage of any resorts' rooms which may have a GC added during prime holidays, especially if there's no concurrent owner reservation for the entire duration of the GC reservation. Cancelling the owner reservation should automatically cancel the GC reservation(s) as well. IMO, owners who abuse the rules (ex., cancelling an owner reservation after the Guest has checked in) may risk losing GC privileges for a year. That may sound harsh but owners who genuinely need to cancel their trip at the last minute ought to understand the risk and let their owner reservation go to waste. JMO.


I would say eliminate any GC's attached to a reservation in the 60 day VIP discount window. This would eliminate reservations made with 1/2 the number of points creating availability for owners personal use.


----------



## 55plus

VacayKat said:


> While I do not see the difference, are you suggesting that rentals because they are commerce are thus hurting? I have never come across a resort I could not book if I was booking >6 months, and almost always can I find something, even within 2 weeks (2021 may and june were exceptions).
> What I feel like you are suggesting is that if a rental is to occur it can not happen if someone wants to go there with their family. I think if that is the case then folks who think like this will never be happy as someone will always be renting something to regain some of the MF they pay.


I speak from personal experience. At 13 months out I can't reserve a two or three bedroom unit at Ocean Walk for Bike Week, but they can be rented for a lot more money than the cost of my points, thus commerce. So yes, I think an owner's personal use should come before someone else's commerce. Also, if you or anyone need to rent to cover maintenance fees then you and they have too many points and should unload them. If you or these same owners rent year after year it has nothing to do with too many point, it has everything to do with commerce, a.k.a., profit.


----------



## troy12n

ronparise said:


> You say that (ruining it for owners)... But I fail to see how someone using  another condo at the resort, ruins the vacation of another person in another condo
> ...
> No one is questioning the fact that if the megarenters points were owned by someone else, someone else would be staying in the condos. Whats being questioned is the relevance. Why do you care who is in the condo next to you.
> ...
> What I hear is a country club kind of attitude. You see renters as someone "less than" riff-raff perhaps. Imagine how the people that own a 100% interest in their condos at Reunion or Daytona for example, must feel about folks like us that only have a less than 2% share staying next door



I can speak for myself... here is the difference. 

I, for one, do not care who is staying in the suite next to me. I really don't. 

What I care about is, if someone who is staying in a suite (any suite at the resort) who is a "guest renter" (not a guest of an owner, an anonymous paying guest who rented the stay on the open market) who is taking a stay away from an owner, who in all likelihood paid full price for their timeshare. Or at least who owns it, and is paying MF on it... 

So instead we have a non-owner paying someone like you, who is taking up space or the opportunity to book, from an owner. You are enriching yourself, at the expense of the "club members" at large. The people who pay MF. 

This is a difference. And one usually completely avoided when mega renters respond to such charges.

I'm not repeating it again, I have no issues with owners inviting friends or family as guests, that is indeed part of the ownership experience. 

That's not what we are talking about here... we are talking about the 80 million points, hundreds of GC's, renting out entire resorts on event weekends, etc... this is the elephant in the room.


----------



## troy12n

55plus said:


> I speak from personal experience. At 13 months out I can't reserve a two or three bedroom unit at Ocean Walk for Bike Week, but they can be rented for a lot more money than the cost of my points, thus commerce. So yes, I think an owner's personal use should come before someone else's commerce. Also, if you or anyone need to rent to cover maintenance fees then you and they have too many points and should unload them. If you or these same owners rent year after year it has nothing to do with too many point, it has everything to do with commerce, a.k.a., profit.



You mean having ~80 million points and paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in MF isn't just "I have a lot of friends and family"??  

This is where the argument of "covering MF" falls flat. Because maybe you shouldn't have millions of points.


----------



## Lisa P

ronparise said:


> I fail to see how someone using another condo at the resort, ruins the vacation of another person in another condo


Ron, I'm not the person you wrote this about and I respect you enormously. But I take issue with this comment.

For us, it's not the existence of the renter in the condo next door that impacts my vacation. It's that a system that allows profitable megarenting motivates those megarenters to reserve huge blocks of prime time at resorts (naturally, for the greatest profit) and subsequently, the little guy owners (especially those with larger families who need larger units) can be effectively _blocked out_ of vacationing at those times/places. This has happened to us several times at the 10 month mark.

This is a problem that IMO, ligitimately ought to be addressed. For us, everything else is tangential.


----------



## rapmarks

A Bluegreen owner can clarify this, but I believe they set a 10 reservation per region at one time limit to stem mega rentals


----------



## 55plus

ronparise said:


> You say that (ruining it for owners)... But I fail to see how someone using  another condo at the resort, ruins the vacation of another person in another condo


It does ruin someone's vacation if the resort is taken over by mega renters and availability is nil during certain timeframes. I speak from experience. I can't reserve a unit at 13 months out with my points, but I can rent it from someone for a lot more than the cost of my points. This is why I'm elated Wyndham is enforcing the no commerce activity policy. Mega renters have caused enough damage. Their actions caused the lost of some VIP benefits over the years, not to mention depriving owners of reservations at prime resorts and prime timeframes.


----------



## Braindead

@dgalati - Here you go, I had you beat by 4 years on calling for no VIP benefits for resale points.


*Braindead*
TUG Member
JoinedMay 23, 2016Messages2,490Reaction score1,214Points273

Jan 2, 2017

Wyndham doesn't need to change the rules!!! Just enforce the rules in place! No VIP benefits for resale points. Hardly any owners have 5 million or more developer points to tie up points on multiple prime reservations to end up with 1 reservation. No commercial renting. I'm sure there's an exemption for Extra Holidays already in place if you interpret the wording correctly. Wyndham has the authority to use its discretion. 

If your reservation or points are listed or advertised on a website or through a third party that would be considered commercial by almost any court. Loss or profit doesn't matter. Commercial entities lose money everyday. Wyndham has a IT problem to fix. But I also think they are drawing out the audits to see how much business they can pickup at Extra Holidays and get a handle on how much renting was occurring. They were diffidently caught off guard at the amount of commercial renting. Extra Holidays is a great way to get new sales! If you liked your stay here let me show you how you can save money on your vacations. 

Just look at TripAdvisor comments sometime. People comment on renting constantly. I looked up Wyndham Waikiki Beach Walk. Mr. Weng told a client he has thousands of rentals. Shelby Resorts mentioned several times. I truely believe all of us would be surprised at the availability of prime reservations if the current rules were enforced. I don't think even some renters here realize the amount of renting currently. 

I don't know how AM1 and others believe they can defend their actions in court. When they are in clear violations of the rules. Wyndham has sole authority on how to handle the situation. You can't say your not guilty because you did it for years. People break laws for years but when caught you are still guilty. This may sound harsh but sometimes the truth isn't what you want here


----------



## troy12n

The tide is turning...  some of you are seeing the light, and the rats are scurrying to the shadows


----------



## HitchHiker71

Cyrus24 said:


> This is where the problem lies, semantics. An owner, regardless of status 'consumes' their points, points they paid for, when they make a reservation. A renter is paying to use the points that an owner consumes.
> 
> One of the issues that many owners have a problem with is that a renter is occupying a unit. And, someone is, supposedly, being harmed by that. Then translating that to mean that the owner doing the renting did something 'wrong'. While I see the point, we need to quit vilifying owners who used points as they saw fit. Loophole, or not, Wyndham has allowed renting. The new rules will certainly reel in the financial gain from renting, but, renting will still exist, as long as GC's are allowed. I've not heard much interest in eliminating GC's. Is that the next target?





Cyrus24 said:


> This is where the problem lies, semantics. An owner, regardless of status 'consumes' their points, points they paid for, when they make a reservation. A renter is paying to use the points that an owner consumes.
> 
> One of the issues that many owners have a problem with is that a renter is occupying a unit. And, someone is, supposedly, being harmed by that. Then translating that to mean that the owner doing the renting did something 'wrong'. While I see the point, we need to quit vilifying owners who used points as they saw fit. Loophole, or not, Wyndham has allowed renting. The new rules will certainly reel in the financial gain from renting, but, renting will still exist, as long as GC's are allowed. I've not heard much interest in eliminating GC's. Is that the next target?



I’m sorry, but it is far from mere semantics. Violation of terms of use is not semantics - it is grounds to remove the owner from the entire system - just like what happened to a subset of megarenters in 2016 - and it will happen again in 2020 and 2021 if necessary. There’s a marked difference, and a legal difference, between an owner who uses points within the bounds of the system, and an owner running a commercial business which clearly violates the terms of use - and this is easily proven in a court of law, which is why this lawsuit won’t do much of anything other than paint a target on the plaintiffs back. 

And yes, if the current restrictions and corresponding account suspensions do not work - further restrictions will be considered without a doubt, regarding your reference to eliminating GCs for example. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## dgalati

[/QUOTE]





Braindead said:


> @dgalati - Here you go, I had you beat by 4 years on calling for no VIP benefits for resale points.
> 
> 
> *Braindead*
> TUG Member
> JoinedMay 23, 2016Messages2,490Reaction score1,214Points273
> 
> Jan 2, 2017
> 
> Wyndham doesn't need to change the rules!!! Just enforce the rules in place! No VIP benefits for resale points. Hardly any owners have 5 million or more developer points to tie up points on multiple prime reservations to end up with 1 reservation. No commercial renting. I'm sure there's an exemption for Extra Holidays already in place if you interpret the wording correctly. Wyndham has the authority to use its discretion.
> 
> If your reservation or points are listed or advertised on a website or through a third party that would be considered commercial by almost any court. Loss or profit doesn't matter. Commercial entities lose money everyday. Wyndham has a IT problem to fix. But I also think they are drawing out the audits to see how much business they can pickup at Extra Holidays and get a handle on how much renting was occurring. They were diffidently caught off guard at the amount of commercial renting. Extra Holidays is a great way to get new sales! If you liked your stay here let me show you how you can save money on your vacations.
> 
> Just look at TripAdvisor comments sometime. People comment on renting constantly. I looked up Wyndham Waikiki Beach Walk. Mr. Weng told a client he has thousands of rentals. Shelby Resorts mentioned several times. I truely believe all of us would be surprised at the availability of prime reservations if the current rules were enforced. I don't think even some renters here realize the amount of renting currently.
> 
> I don't know how AM1 and others believe they can defend their actions in court. When they are in clear violations of the rules. Wyndham has sole authority on how to handle the situation. You can't say your not guilty because you did it for years. People break laws for years but when caught you are still guilty. This may sound harsh but sometimes the truth isn't what you want here





ronparise said:


> this is from the 2012-13 directory pg 331 This directory is posted in the Tug Wyndham forum stickies  (I posted it and its still there
> View attachment 37963


It was posted a few times over the years but we can agree the elimination of resale points with VIP discounts and free upgrades will be beneficial to owners looking to book for personal use.


----------



## The trumpster

From what I am reading these “mega renters” have made this their job. This is how they make money just like how everyone else finds a way to make money. So if they work for their money how is it a “free ride”. Everyone has to find a way to make money. I believe many of you are just jellous you have not thought of this way.


----------



## paxsarah

55plus said:


> At 13 months out I can't reserve a two or three bedroom unit at Ocean Walk for Bike Week


Out of pure curiosity, do you own select at Ocean Walk, or CWA? My guess would be that it’s easier to book bike week with Ocean Walk deeded than CWA, but I don’t mind being proven wrong. (I assume midnight at 13 months in either case.)


----------



## troy12n

The trumpster said:


> *From what I am reading these “mega renters” have made this their job*.



Yes, it seems that way...



> This is how they make money just like how everyone else finds a way to make money.



Which is explicitly against the rules



> So if they work for their money how is it a “free ride”. Everyone has to find a way to make money. I believe many of you are just jellous you have not thought of this way.



LoL... now we have mega renters registering as guests to support their position.

OK, "Trumpster"...


----------



## HitchHiker71

VacayKat said:


> This argument is not accurate. EVERY purchase has to be approved by Wyndham. I literally did not say they purchased developer points. I’m not stupid. But if Wyndham approves of the transaction, they condone it, and therefore your point is just about not addressing the question I posed.



IIRC ROFR was not in many of the contracts prior to 2012 timeframe - so in the case of the majority of megarenters that have been playing this game for much longer - I don’t believe Wyndham actually has the ability you are referring to here. That said - I don’t doubt that the Wyndham of old looked the other way to some extent - but the new Wyndham under the new leadership clearly has different objectives. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## troy12n

HitchHiker71 said:


> And yes, if the current restrictions and corresponding account suspensions do not work - further restrictions will be considered without a doubt, regarding your reference to eliminating GCs for example.



I guess the big question is, why don't they just do a big 2016 style account suspension on all the mega renters, cancel their reservations, and let the rest sort itself out. They obviously have the analytics to know who these people are and who to selectively target. It should be easy enough to see who has BC/GC/OW/NOLA "booked out" on certain dates. 

I think it's been made pretty obvious there are not a huge number of these people running the table with million of points.


----------



## 55plus

paxsarah said:


> Out of pure curiosity, do you own select at Ocean Walk, or CWA? My guess would be that it’s easier to book bike week with Ocean Walk deeded than CWA, but I don’t mind being proven wrong. (I assume midnight at 13 months in either case.)


I'm deeded (525K developer and 154K resale points) at Ocean Walk. By 7AM the 2 and 3 bedroom units are gone, leaving me with having to book multiple one bedroom units for my party.


----------



## am1

55plus said:


> I'm deeded (525K developer and 154K resale points) at Ocean Walk. By 7AM the 2 and 3 bedroom units are gone, leaving me with having to book multiple one bedroom units for my party.



That is the luck of the draw or poor planning or execution.


----------



## tschwa2

55plus said:


> I'm deeded (525K developer and 154K resale points) at Ocean Walk. By 7AM the 2 and 3 bedroom units are gone, leaving me with having to book multiple one bedroom units for my party.


You couldn't get one 2BR booked 13 months in advance?


----------



## The trumpster

troy12n said:


> So... what's the deal? Why support mega renters?


Imagine you have a house at vacation location and instead of you going there you you rent it out. There is no difference between somone renting it out and the owner going there. The owner has the right to rent it out Becuase they own the house… just like how they own points. But imagine the city that this house is in says no more rentals cause the city is getting busy. Even though it would be just as busy if the owner went there instead of a renter. This is what wyndam is doing. Then their is the argument that without these mega renters it would be easier to book a reservation this is not true. Just because the mega renter isn’t booking the room does not mean that you will get it… without the mega renters there would still be the same amount of points but more widely dispersed causing even more competition to book a room this isn’t a issue mega renters caused but a issue wyndam caused by creating so many points.


----------



## 55plus

am1 said:


> That is the luck of the draw or poor planning or execution.


If I can't book a reservation, but I can rent a bunch of them, it's not being unlucky or poor planning, it greed by a bunch of mega renters. I'm thankful it's coming to an end.


----------



## bnoble

If I were looking for an in-demand reservation at the 10-month (or 13-month) mark, I'd be checking from exactly the minute they were available, not seven hours later.


----------



## ronparise

Eric B said:


> I would say that it would be Wyndham owners using their rights to the time at the resort in both cases, though the rented ones are for a different use than the ones with an owner staying on a reservation made with their own points.  Wyndham has always had the right to set out restrictions in this regard and has done a poor job at it based on all available evidence.  I believe the latest effort only addresses the margins still.



actually the use is exactly the same: folks enjoying a vacation


Braindead said:


> What several fail to realize is when mega renters basically take over a resort ALL availability is gone. *A mega renter takes over 90% of the units *for a high demand time  they control their own upgrades. The mega renter cancels a 4 bedroom they have well over a 90% chance to the auto upgrade or have patterned when the cancelled unit comes back. That’s what most miss on equal chance at reservations. Mega renter cancels 4 bedroom PR unit at 60 days it‘s nearly 100% chance it’ll be their upgrade.
> 
> *The mega renter has basically tied up the entire resort until inside the 60 day window.* The average owner has already given up on that resort so choose a different resort to go to. The mega renter has cancelled & upgraded all the 3&4 bedroom units. So they cancel a non rented studio at 17 days out, what good is that for a family with kids?
> 
> Do mega renters basically take over resorts at times? It’s a fact yes they do & it has been reported by some here in this forum. *A well known member basically took over a resort for Mardi Gras* so if you wanted to stay there you had no other choice than to rent from them. Another member here reported another resort was around 95% renters for Thanksgiving. *By controlling the upgrades it creates more points left for them to make more reservations than what their ownership supports.*
> 
> Do you want 100 happy owners for a weekend or 1 mega renter?


Now you have done it.... You have gone and poked the bear... 

You can go ahead and use my name. I think anyone thats been around here any length of time knows who you are talking about

The thing is, you dont know what you are talking about. And if you are going to argue that this mega renter, took over a resort to make your argument against renting...you lose.

First La Belle Maison ... There are 134 units at this property. When I was active you had to call in at exactly  8am, 13 months ahead of check in to get a Mardi Gras reservation, and then as now you had to own either CWA points or La Belle Maison points to get an ARP reservation   I owned both My problem was that by the time I finished making my reservations using La Belle Maison points the CWA reservations were gone... so I uses all my La Belle Maison points for Mardi Gras reservations.. I went for the 4 night reservations ahead of Mardi Gras Tuesday, (Fri, Sat, Sun and Mon). There were very few 2 bedroom units at the resort, so I didnt even try for them.. I would make one studio reservation and as many one bedrooms as I could.  To get them all I would need about about 15 million LBM points, I had less than 4 mm, but remember that I wasnt the only person on the phone and the reservations clerk I was talking to, wasnt the only one working. So what would happen is that the reservations were gone before I was able to use all my points.. I would generally get 10 + reservations...I never got as many as 20... so 10% maybe...hardly control

Avenue Plaza has 264 units..(i think). A big chunk of those units are Worldmark units.. I owned some Worldmark credits, but thats not under discussion here, another big piece of the resort was deeded weeks, sold by the guy (Mr John) that converted the property to timeshares. Some of those weeks had been  converted to points but could only be used in the ARP window for the week noted on the deed, some were no doubt Mardi Gras, but not many... I owned two dedicated  Mardi Gras weeks not converted to points, but .. also not under discussion.   Any weeks unsold by Mr John were taken over by Wyndham after Mr John died. and as near as I can tell, the ones not put into Worldmark, went into CWA.  

So at 13 months I used my CWA points for as many Avenue Plaza reservations as possible... But remember I started on the phone working with my La Belle Maison points... By the time we got to Avenue Plaza they were gone.  
I never understood why, but there were always some Mardi Gras reservations available at 10 months... Not many and you had to be quick, but I always got a couple then.. Bottom line using Wyndham points at Avenue Plaza I might have 5 Mardi Gras reservations  

 since we are talking about control, lets look at all of Wyndham and all of my ownerships... out of about 400 units I could get at best 50 reservations or
12% (and most of them were Worldmark)  thats not enough to control anything. You might say I was lucky to get that...

and dont think cancel and rebook and upgrade increases the number of reservations. If anything Id lose a reservation or two in the 60 day window  And there was no such loophole with worldmark or the weeks ownerships, At LaBelle, if I was lucky , Id start with 10 one bedroom reservations and one studio and end up with 10 one bedrooms at half the studio price and one half price studio.. Nice to be sure, but still only 11 units to rent. (the points I got back doing the cancel and rebook thing couldnt be used for Mardi Gras,, those reservations were already taken.. I did use them for other things, but usually I just flipped them for cost to a points manager












VacayKat said:


> This argument is not accurate. EVERY purchase has to be approved by Wyndham. I literally did not say they purchased developer points. I’m not stupid. But if Wyndham approves of the transaction, they condone it, and therefore your point is just about not addressing the question I posed.



also consider that every point purchased on the secondary market was sold by Wyndham at full price originally.  Wyndham strips the VIP benefit upon resale...how fair is that??


----------



## 55plus

The trumpster said:


> Imagine you have a house at vacation location and instead of you going there you you rent it out. There is no difference between somone renting it out and the owner going there. The owner has the right to rent it out Becuase they own the house… just like how they own points. But imagine the city that this house is in says no more rentals cause the city is getting busy. Even though it would be just as busy if the owner went there instead of a renter. This is what wyndam is doing. Then their is the argument that without these mega renters it would be easier to book a reservation this is not true. Just because the mega renter isn’t booking the room does not mean that you will get it… without the mega renters there would still be the same amount of points but more widely dispersed causing even more competition to book a room this isn’t a issue mega renters caused but a issue wyndam caused by creating so many points.


There is no justification for taking over a resort other than greed. It's not the same and you know it. This is more accurate: If you and your brother own a property and he rented it to a stranger, you can't use it even though you own it, and he kept the money for himself. Bottom line, no commercial activity is the policy and Wyndham is coming down on those who abused it. Amen.


----------



## ronparise

The trumpster said:


> From what I am reading these “mega renters” have made this their job. This is how they make money just like how everyone else finds a way to make money. So if they work for their money how is it a “free ride”. Everyone has to find a way to make money. I believe many of you are just jellous you have not thought of this way.


Not only do megarenters work for their money, The pay maintenance fees too.. I was paying about 20k/month


----------



## paxsarah

55plus said:


> I'm deeded (525K developer and 154K resale points) at Ocean Walk. By 7AM the 2 and 3 bedroom units are gone, leaving me with having to book multiple one bedroom units for my party.


I can’t help but ask why you’re waiting until 7am?

There are multiple time I’ve booked something at 10 months at midnight when there was nothing remaining available later when I got up at 6-7 am.

In the decade since I’ve been an owner, when people ask whether ARP is necessary, the conventional answer here (and before that, where I started on the ATOZED Wyndham forum) has been essentially, “Not really, except for certain high-demand weeks - Mardi Gras in New Orleans, Bike Week in Daytona, a 3 or 4 bedroom presidential at Bonnet Creek for Thanksgiving or Christmas, Myrtle Beach in summer (except sometimes Ocean Boulevard).” I can’t conceive of owing ARP at one of the highest demand weeks in the Wyndham system and then hoping something’s available 7 hours later.


----------



## 55plus

bnoble said:


> If I were looking for an in-demand reservation at the 10-month (or 13-month) mark, I'd be checking from exactly the minute they were available, not seven hours later.



Thanks to Wyndham enforcing the policy, I guess I don't have to worry about that anymore


----------



## Mongoose

The guy has 67M points. That's equivalent to 375 180,000 point contracts. Maintenance fees must be $500,000. Crazy. Not a fan of mega renters at all. But this guy invested a ton in the system and now they are changing the rules. He may have a case. I almost want to route for him for beating Wyndham at their own game. The lies of the sales weasels may catch up to them. "In 2020, Wyndham canceled a “significant number” of reservations made by the plaintiffs, saying they violated the company’s policy on “engaging in commercial activity,” according to the complaint. But commercial activity was the reason the Klebbas were told to buy the points in the first place, the suit says."


----------



## Cyrus24

55plus said:


> I'm deeded (525K developer and 154K resale points) at Ocean Walk. By 7AM the 2 and 3 bedroom units are gone, leaving me with having to book multiple one bedroom units for my party.


How many GC's are you using for the multiple 1br units in the party?  That many friends and family?  Are you receiving any compensation for those key reservations?  Are you renting out units???????  Might you also be part of the problem?


----------



## troy12n

55plus said:


> If I can't book a reservation, but I can rent a bunch of them, it's not being unlucky or poor planning, it greed by a bunch of mega renters. I'm thankful it's coming to an end.





am1 said:


> That is the luck of the draw or poor planning or execution.



What they are saying is that if you are not online at 12:01am at exactly the 13 month mark booking your suite, you didn't plan properly and that's tough luck.

I think some of you are seeing the issue now. It's "tough luck" and "poor planning", not greedy, wanna-be travel agents playing internet slum lord from their laptop in the middle of the night...

@am1 way to try to get people on your side, lol... keep it up


----------



## chapjim

55plus said:


> If I can't book a reservation, but I can rent a bunch of them, it's not being unlucky or poor planning, it greed by a bunch of mega renters. I'm thankful it's coming to an end.



If it's that important, why do you wait until 7 AM?  When you snooze, you lose.


----------



## raygo123

scootr5 said:


> Especially if Wyndham was covering the cost of the points difference for the discounts and upgrades on the non-VIP eligible resale points.


Is it 60 days before a reservation date that Wyndham,by the contract can simply take the points?

Sent from my Lenovo TB-X606F using Tapatalk


----------



## Mongoose

ronparise said:


> Not only do megarenters work for their money, The pay maintenance fees too.. I was paying about 20k/month


I hear you, but its really changing the model to almost a franchise and makes it difficult for the "everyday family" to get the rooms they want and have invested in.  People that want to be in the hospitality business should invest in a hotel.  If Wyndham allows this and it prevents others from gaining access to rooms, then the "risk" of mega renters should be disclosed during purchase.  Still, it doesn't seem fair to change the rules midstream for those like you that have invested time and money to create a business.


----------



## Mongoose

chapjim said:


> If it's that important, why do you wait until 7 AM?  When you snooze, you lose.


Owners didn't sign up to complete against a business to gain access to a resort they paid for.  I can image these mega renters have banks of phones and employees lined up making reservations at 6:00AM.  Really a tough situation for all involved.


----------



## ronparise

N


55plus said:


> It does ruin someone's vacation if the resort is taken over by mega renters and availability is nil during certain timeframes. I speak from experience. I can't reserve a unit at 13 months out with my points, but I can rent it from someone for a lot more than the cost of my points. This is why I'm elated Wyndham is enforcing the no commerce activity policy. Mega renters have caused enough damage. Their actions caused the lost of some VIP benefits over the years, not to mention depriving owners of reservations at prime resorts and prime timeframes.


no question that Wyndham in fighting off the megarenters has changed the rules to the detriment of all owners. But thats Wyndham, not the megarenters.  Wyndham could have just brought down the hammer all at once, (like they finally did with me and Adam). But no they went after this with one fee, and one rule change at a time. Fees and changes that applied to all owners,  Think about it, If Wyndham takes an action to cut my profit in half, what my reaction going to be, Wyndham thought we would go out of business rather than work for half the money.. Some did, but some doubled up. If Im making $100000 doing 100 reservations a year, at $1000 profit each. and you cut me back to $500 each. My reaction should be obvious.. Ill make 200 reservations


If you cant get your reservation at 13 months there is something wrong with you
Using a hypothetical 100 room resort as an example, If there are 100 owners going on line  for reservations, and if the megarenter wants 10 reservations he is only going to get one. because as he is making his first reservation, the other 99 owners are making their reservations.. When the megarenter igoesfor his second reservation, he wont get it because, they will all be gone


----------



## Mongoose

ronparise said:


> If you cant get your reservation at 13 months there is something wrong with you
> Using a hypothetical 100 room resort as an example, If there are 100 owners going on line  for reservations, and if the megarenter wants 10 reservations he is only going to get one. because as he is making his first reservation, the other 99 owners are making their reservations.. When the megarenter igoesfor his second reservation, he wont get it because, they will all be gone


That's not a fair statement.  I've been on exactly at 6:00 and had Kona sold out before I could submit the reservation.  Maybe they need to limit the number of reservations one person can make in a single day.


----------



## CO skier

55plus said:


> ...
> 
> According to the complaint, the plaintiffs were lured into buying points with the promise that they could rent them out to generate income, allowing non-timeshare owners to stay at Wyndham resorts.
> 
> ...





Mongoose said:


> The guy has 67M points. That's equivalent to 375 180,000 point contracts. Maintenance fees must be $500,000. Crazy. Not a fan of mega renters at all. But this guy invested a ton in the system and now they are changing the rules. He may have a case. I almost want to route for him for beating Wyndham at their own game. The lies of the sales weasels may catch up to them. "In 2020, Wyndham canceled a “significant number” of reservations made by the plaintiffs, saying they violated the company’s policy on “engaging in commercial activity,” according to the complaint. But commercial activity was the reason the Klebbas were told to buy the points in the first place, the suit says."



This lawsuit sounds like a rerun of the 2012 Sirmon v. Wyndham lawsuit that involved a 23,000,000 points VIP account.





__





						Sirmon v. Wyndham Vacation Resorts, Inc., 922 F. Supp. 2d 1261 | Casetext Search + Citator
					

Read Sirmon v. Wyndham Vacation Resorts, Inc., 922 F. Supp. 2d 1261, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database



					casetext.com
				




"Plaintiffs allege that, notwithstanding these prohibitions, Wyndham sales representatives regularly promoted rental when encouraging them to make additional purchases. Plaintiffs' allegation is supported by the testimony of several former Wyndham employees, who testified that, with encouragement from management, sales representatives would discuss: (1) specific amounts owners could expect to receive from renting (Martin Depo., Doc. 146–7 at 222); (2) the likelihood of being able to rent (Bonds Depo., Doc. 146–11 at 31); (3) third-party experiences about amounts owners could expect to receive from renting ( _id._ at 53); and (4) that the owner can cover expenses and maintenance fees from revenue generated by renting. ( _Id._ at 33.) Former Wyndham employee Paul Bonds  testified that the “rental pitch” was used the entire time he was employed by Wyndham. (Bonds Depo., Doc. 146–11 at 32.) Further, when asked who at Wyndham was aware the rental pitch was being used, Bonds stated: “Everybody, all staff, salespeople, managers, director of sales, vice presidents, that's as far as I know, as high up as that.” ( _Id._ at 40.) Similarly, former Wyndham employee Tom Martin  testified that “sales representatives were instructed by their managers to promise rental income to owners, sometimes in the thousandsof dollars.” (Martin Depo., Doc. 146–7 at 222.)"

And there was a bunch of other stuff about Wyndham's Megarenter presentations and changes to the VIP program.

The documents signed by the Sirmons at the various closings figured prominently in the case, and the case did not go well for the plaintiffs.


----------



## troy12n

ronparise said:


> Think about it, If Wyndham takes an action to cut my profit in half, what my reaction going to be, Wyndham thought we would go out of business rather than work for half the money.. Some did, but some doubled up. If Im making $100000 doing 100 reservations a year, at $1000 profit each. and you cut me back to $500 each. My reaction should be obvious.. Ill make 200 reservations



This entitled attitude is really telling. Pay attention you all... 

Maybe rather than try to find other ways to scam the system, some of you should find real jobs like the rest of us. 



> If you cant get your reservation at 13 months there is something wrong with you



See, at various points in the many threads on the subject, the narrative has been "I only make a very small percentage of bookings at ARP"... now the truth is coming out and the narrative is changing. 



> Using a hypothetical 100 room resort as an example, If there are 100 owners going on line  for reservations, and if the megarenter wants 10 reservations he is only going to get one. because as he is making his first reservation, the other 99 owners are making their reservations.. When the megarenter igoesfor his second reservation, he wont get it because, they will all be gone



I'm guessing some of you have shared your Wyndham login with dozens of people who are online at midnight a few times a year to snipe these bookings. Be truthful, then talk to me about how an owner can compete with that. 

There are so many levels of lies, deceit and downright hypocrisy layered in these various threads. I don't know how anyone without an obvious conflict of interest can support you people and your *business* practices...


----------



## troy12n

Mongoose said:


> That's not a fair statement.  I've been on exactly at 6:00 and had Kona sold out before I could submit the reservation.  Maybe they need to limit the number of reservations one person can make in a single day.



Eliminating, or severely limiting GC's will completely solve this problem. Completely. No workarounds.


----------



## chapjim

Mongoose said:


> Owners didn't sign up to complete against a business to gain access to a resort they paid for.  I can image these mega renters have banks of phones and employees lined up making reservations at 6:00AM.  Really a tough situation for all involved.



Keep imaging but try being realistic!  For one thing, I doubt many reservations are being made by telephone so it would have to be banks of computers, lots of employees, lots of different VIP accounts with lots of owners listed on each account.  And since you're in Colorado, you only have to stay up until 10 PM to book on-line reservations.  I don't see your problem (other than fantasizing about banks of phones, etc.).

I've been accused of being a mega-renter and it's just me.  One phone, no employees.  If it's Friday or Saturday night, I stay up.  If not, I wait until morning, but not until 7 AM uniess it's something I don't care that much about.

It's just my wife and me on the account so I max out at two reservations per week.  I can ARP into two resorts.  Hard to see how I'm keeping a lot of owners from getting their reservations, but I'm called a mega-renter.


----------



## ronparise

Mongoose said:


> I hear you, but its really changing the model to almost a franchise and makes it difficult for the "everyday family" to get the rooms they want and have invested in.  People that want to be in the hospitality business should invest in a hotel.  If Wyndham allows this and it prevents others from gaining access to rooms, then the "risk" of mega renters should be disclosed during purchase.  Still, it doesn't seem fair to change the rules midstream for those like you that have invested time and money to create a business.




To be fair, I didnt invest any money... my first ownership (3 weeks converted to 385000 points)  cost me a dollar... everything else was bootstrapped off of that. Part of my income from every deal went into the next deal. until I found a source for free timeshares, Again that goes back to Wyndham... Wyndham refused to take back their own product. I met a number of folks here on Tug that gave me their points, because Wyndham wouldnt take them back and they couldnt sell them, or even give them away except to a fool like me.  . And I had a deal with a timeshare relief company (we used to call them post card companies) Folks paid them to get rid of their timeshares... How did they get rid of them?...they gave them to me



Dont expect Wyndham to disclose any risk.. If they did they should be telling customers, that they are paying thousands of dollars for a product, that,  good as it is. has no resale value. 

I knew from the beginning that this was a hustle, not a business, I had a good run, and it lasted a whole lot longer than I expected it to.  Dont feel bad about me or any others. we knew or should have known that it couldnt last. Feel bad for yourself.  This sounds kinda crappy and cruel but you own something completely worthless,,,be happy you get any use out of it. 

the system is not built built around guarantees. There are less that 400 rooms in New Orleans at Mardi Gras for 900000 owners.   do the math
Gorden Gekko said, "If you want a friend, get a dog".  When it comes  to timeshares, If you want a guarantee , get a fixed week


----------



## chapjim

troy12n said:


> What they are saying is that if you are not online at 12:01am at exactly the 13 month mark booking your suite, you didn't plan properly and that's tough luck.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> @am1 way to try to get people on your side, lol... keep it up



No, what I'm saying is if you wait until 7 AM to book a high-demand week, you didn't want it that badly.  If an owner can't ARP into a resort for a high-demand week, then he is going to be three months and a few hours late.  That's not a mega-renter problem.  That's an unrealistic expectation -- a fantasy.


----------



## paxsarah

55plus said:


> Thanks to Wyndham enforcing the policy, I guess I don't have to worry about that anymore



Good luck with that. Who are you going to blame when you still get shut out at 7am next time?


----------



## HitchHiker71

Braindead said:


> I would have to go back & dig out an old post, but I posted that the way to stop rentals is to control GCs. No GCs on discounted & or upgraded reservations no matter if the reservation was made outside or inside the 60 day window. Give less free ones & raise the cost of additional ones drastically maybe $500 or even a $1,000. Say VIPP gets 5 free & you can only buy 2 more then that’s it for the year.



IIRC there’s a clear statement that VIP benefits only apply to VIP owners - and not to anyone else not listed on the account (such as a guest). With that in mind - it would make logical sense that any/all reservations made with VIP discounts and/or room upgrades would not qualify for GC usage. I’m not endorsing this - just reading the VIP program rules. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Braindead

ronparise said:


> Now you have done it.... You have gone and poked the bear...
> 
> You can go ahead and use my name. I think anyone thats been around here any length of time knows who you are talking about
> 
> The thing is, you dont know what you are talking about. And if you are going to argue that this mega renter, took over a resort to make your argument against renting...you lose.
> 
> First La Belle Maison ... There are 134 units at this property. When I was active you had to call in at exactly  8am, 13 months ahead of check in to get a Mardi Gras reservation, and then as now you had to own either CWA points or La Belle Maison points to get an ARP reservation   I owned both My problem was that by the time I finished making my reservations using La Belle Maison points the CWA reservations were gone... so I uses all my La Belle Maison points for Mardi Gras reservations.. I went for the 4 night reservations ahead of Mardi Gras Tuesday, (Fri, Sat, Sun and Mon). There were very few 2 bedroom units at the resort, so I didnt even try for them.. I would make one studio reservation and as many one bedrooms as I could.  To get them all I would need about about 15 million LBM points, I had less than 4 mm, but remember that I wasnt the only person on the phone and the reservations clerk I was talking to, wasnt the only one working. So what would happen is that the reservations were gone before I was able to use all my points.. I would generally get 10 + reservations...I never got as many as 20... so 10% maybe...hardly control
> 
> Avenue Plaza has 264 units..(i think). A big chunk of those units are Worldmark units.. I owned some Worldmark credits, but thats not under discussion here, another big piece of the resort was deeded weeks, sold by the guy (Mr John) that converted the property to timeshares. Some of those weeks had been  converted to points but could only be used in the ARP window for the week noted on the deed, some were no doubt Mardi Gras, but not many... I owned two dedicated  Mardi Gras weeks not converted to points, but .. also not under discussion.   Any weeks unsold by Mr John were taken over by Wyndham after Mr John died. and as near as I can tell, the ones not put into Worldmark, went into CWA.
> 
> So at 13 months I used my CWA points for as many Avenue Plaza reservations as possible... But remember I started on the phone working with my La Belle Maison points... By the time we got to Avenue Plaza they were gone.
> I never understood why, but there were always some Mardi Gras reservations available at 10 months... Not many and you had to be quick, but I always got a couple then.. Bottom line using Wyndham points at Avenue Plaza I might have 5 Mardi Gras reservations
> 
> since we are talking about control, lets look at all of Wyndham and all of my ownerships... out of about 400 units I could get at best 50 reservations or
> 12% (and most of them were Worldmark)  thats not enough to control anything. You might say I was lucky to get that...
> 
> and dont think cancel and rebook and upgrade increases the number of reservations. If anything Id lose a reservation or two in the 60 day window  And there was no such loophole with worldmark or the weeks ownerships, At LaBelle, if I was lucky , Id start with 10 one bedroom reservations and one studio and end up with 10 one bedrooms at half the studio price and one half price studio.. Nice to be sure, but still only 11 units to rent. (the points I got back doing the cancel and rebook thing couldnt be used for Mardi Gras,, those reservations were already taken.. I did use them for other things, but usually I just flipped them for cost to a points manager


You know I have a ton of respect for you, you helped me immensely & you always responded to my PMs.
But we have disagreed at times & always kept it respectful. I will try to keep it that way here but I remember things a little different.

MR[mega renters] or PM[point managers] never had their wife or someone else calling at the same time as the mega renter themselves making reservations tying up 2 lines & 2 VCs or more? Today it would be different individuals logged into different accounts.
Would VCs stay on the line making multiple reservations before hanging up to start over with a different owner?
MR or PM never had more than one account to get around the 10 unit limit ?
MR or PM never had help from another owner tying up reservations?

I don’t want to go over the past on everything, I like that you say the points saved made more reservations for rentals whether it was you or the Point Manger.
It’s great to here that you & your family are very healthy enjoying life!! Thank You for all you’ve done for me & the TUG family!!!

@chapjim I don’t know who called you a mega renter but I never thought of you as one, yes you do rentals but a far cry from being a mega renter in my book.

Others that I know like you are being thrown in that group also by some & Wyndham with the letters they’ve received, that’s a shame. As Ron always said others will be collateral damage when rule changes are made. This is another one of those instances with roughly 4,000 of us taking yet another hit to our VIP benefits due to a few rule violators.

Wyndham seems to always use a blanket policy method when making rule changes to all owners verses only going after targeted individuals.


----------



## troy12n

12:01am at ARP...


----------



## Cyrus24

It's actually 12:00am, that is when the new day arrives.  If you wait until 12:01, you've waited too long.


----------



## CO skier

ronparise said:


> Think about it, If Wyndham takes an action to cut my profit in half, what my reaction going to be, Wyndham thought we would go out of business rather than work for half the money.. Some did, but some doubled up. If Im making $100000 doing 100 reservations a year, at $1000 profit each. and you cut me back to $500 each. My reaction should be obvious.. Ill make 200 reservations


You posted the same idea in 2017 ... sort of ... but left out the most important part this time.

Really?  A 60,000,000 points owner is going to double their ownership to make twice as many reservations at half the profit?  Highly doubtful.



In August 2017 ronparise said:


> If you are right that mega renters will adapt and figure out how to make money at this And  if they can no longer get 3 bedrooms at half the studio rate; they will have to make more reservations for the same money
> 
> More rentals has to mean less availability for the other owners
> 
> *But that's all theoretical. Things may change going foreword but for now I know a number of mega renters that are planning to retire, looking for other opportunities, or selling out. I don't know of anyone building a significant position right now. And the points managers are either quitting, taking on no new accounts or changing their business plans significantly*





There were also a number of posts in 2017 that commented on noticeable improvements in availability.


Railman83 said:


> If the changes hurt VIP and megarenters how can that not be positive for resale owners who actually want to use the points?  I have noted greater availability pretty much everywhere.


----------



## scootr5

troy12n said:


> It's "tough luck" and "poor planning", not greedy, wanna-be travel agents playing internet slum lord



this is the second or third time I’ve seen you use this term on the forum. I don’t think you understand the meaning, unless you are saying the Wyndham properties are sub-standard and the renters tried to intimidate their customers. 

“A *slumlord* (or *slum landlord*) is a slang term for a landlord, generally an absentee landlordwith more than one property, who attempts to maximize profit by minimizing spending on property maintenance, often in deteriorating neighborhoods, and to tenants that they can intimidate.”


----------



## rapmarks

troy12n said:


> Eliminating, or severely limiting GC's will completely solve this problem. Completely. No workarounds.


I can suggest a workaround. I know owners who run rentals at Christmas mountain.  They check in and meet their renters and give them the keys and parking pass, etc.  their ownership allows four one week reservations at a time.  They might rent two nights, turn over the unit, and get another three nights, they keep the reservation under their name.
I Had someone ask me to get on the deed with her, she would book bonus time, rent it out, and I would go check in and meet her renters,  I was supposed to pay the $500 fee to add my name to the deed, I couldn’t book anything except bonus time for myself. I turned down this “marvelous” offer.  
so I supposedly could get lots of Wyndham points, book glacier canyon exclusively, and do the ten minute drive and check in, hand my renters the keys,  no gc required, go home, make loads of money.


----------



## CO skier

tschwa2 said:


> When wyndham resells the mega renters 700 million points, you will have 2000+ regular owners booking those points so no additional inventory will open up.


The big difference, that some people just cannot understand, is that 700 million points of availability opened up that Owners will book and use for their personal vacations (undeniably a good thing for the Club and Owners), and 700 million points of availability will no longer be offered as rentals (good or bad thing does not matter, because non-owners have no status in Club Wyndham).

That is how Owners will benefit in the future at the expense of renters.  Judging by the millions of Club Wyndham points being dumped on Ebay, the improvement is already underway.


----------



## troy12n

scootr5 said:


> this is the second or third time I’ve seen you use this term on the forum. I don’t think you understand the meaning, unless you are saying the Wyndham properties are sub-standard and the renters tried to intimidate their customers.
> 
> “A *slumlord* (or *slum landlord*) is a slang term for a landlord, generally an absentee landlordwith more than one property, who attempts to maximize profit by minimizing spending on property maintenance, often in deteriorating neighborhoods, and to tenants that they can intimidate.”




Was using slumlord as a derogatory term to the mega renters, not the product. If I wasn't a fan of the product, I wouldn't be an owner. I'm happy with the quality of the product.

I was using slumlord to refer to a "shrewd landlord". If you would like I can stop using that term.


----------



## Lisa P

rapmarks said:


> I can suggest a workaround. I know owners who run rentals at Christmas mountain.  They check in and meet their renters and give them the keys and parking pass, etc.  their ownership allows four one week reservations at a time.


If their ownership cancelled multiple concurrent or overlapping reservations booked under the same owner name and only allowed multiple concurrent reservations with GCs once or twice per year during prime season, it would curtail their business. Doing this to cover maintenance fees on a typical account (not mega-millions of points) in some years or to provide actual occasional gifts to friends and family is not the same as the business model you've described, which is against the contract rules at a number of timeshare companies including Wyndham.


----------



## troy12n

rapmarks said:


> I can suggest a workaround. I know owners who run rentals at Christmas mountain.  They check in and meet their renters and give them the keys and parking pass, etc.  their ownership allows four one week reservations at a time.  They might rent two nights, turn over the unit, and get another three nights, they keep the reservation under their name.
> I Had someone ask me to get on the deed with her, she would book bonus time, rent it out, and I would go check in and meet her renters,  I was supposed to pay the $500 fee to add my name to the deed, I couldn’t book anything except bonus time for myself. I turned down this “marvelous” offer.
> so I supposedly could get lots of Wyndham points, book glacier canyon exclusively, and do the ten minute drive and check in, hand my renters the keys,  no go required, go home, make loads of money.




As soon as Wyndham announced these changes, believe me, the hamster wheels inside these mega renters brains started spinning to try to find ways to work around the restrictions. 

What you say is certainly possible, but unless they live near the resorts in question, that would entail travel, at their expense. This would cut into their profit margin. Also with no GC's it would require them to have a limited number of reservations per week at any given time. Plus if they have multiple reservations in different locations, you can't be at two places at once. 

But if history has shown us anything, people will always try to find ways to work the system to their advantage. The same cat and mouse game that law enforcement plays with the criminals day in and day out... 

Limiting GC's, after the changes they are making now, would be a game changer. And they all know it. And fear it. 

Like I said, even though i'm not a renter, and  have never, ever used even one GC, I see them as a net positive benefit and value-add for ownership in general. I would say actually that the number of free GC's they allow now, is perfectly acceptable. They could even allow owners to buy a limited number more. Or not. I would actually not be in favor of completely eliminating them. But limiting them would fix the problem we have now, no doubt.


----------



## rapmarks

troy12n said:


> As soon as Wyndham announced these changes, believe me, the hamster wheels inside these mega renters brains started spinning to try to find ways to work around the restrictions.
> 
> What you say is certainly possible, but unless they live near the resorts in question, that would entail travel, at their expense. This would cut into their profit margin. Also with no GC's it would require them to have a limited number of reservations per week at any given time. Plus if they have multiple reservations in different locations, you can't be at two places at once.
> 
> But if history has shown us anything, people will always try to find ways to work the system to their advantage. The same cat and mouse game that law enforcement plays with the criminals day in and day out...
> 
> Limiting GC's, after the changes they are making now, would be a game changer. And they all know it. And fear it.
> 
> Like I said, even though i'm not a renter, and  have never, ever used even one GC, I see them as a net positive benefit and value-add for ownership in general. I would say actually that the number of free GC's they allow now, is perfectly acceptable. They could even allow owners to buy a limited number more. Or not. I would actually not be in favor of completely eliminating them. But limiting them would fix the problem we have now, no doubt.


That is why I specifically mentioned Glacier Canyon,which is ten minutes away. this is a property which has very little undesirable time.  Add someone to the deed, pay them $50 to check in and meet your renter, no gc required


----------



## The trumpster

55plus said:


> This is more accurate: If you and your brother own a property and he rented it to a stranger, you can't use it even though you own it, and he kept the money for himself.


Except you have the same opportunity to choose your week use it as your brother does. Everyone has the same opportunity to book anything. Also these mega renters spent a lot more money to get many more points and pay a lot more in maintenance fees so in your analogy your brother would own 99% of the house and pay 99% of the money to keep the house maintained. So why shouldn’t he be able to rent it out even when you have the same chance to choose your week as he does. And again even if there wasn’t mega renters there would still be the same amount of points floating around the problem is there are more points then there should be this is a wyndam issue. it doesn’t matter who owns the points the issue is how many points there is.


----------



## Mongoose

So what is actually happening to the points contracts and MR investment?


----------



## eschjw

troy12n said:


> I guess the big question is, why don't they just do a big 2016 style account suspension on all the mega renters, cancel their reservations, and let the rest sort itself out. They obviously have the analytics to know who these people are and who to selectively target. It should be easy enough to see who has BC/GC/OW/NOLA "booked out" on certain dates.
> 
> I think it's been made pretty obvious there are not a huge number of these people running the table with million of points.


Yes, that is the big question. *They should be able to use analytics *to selectively target the real mega renters without inflecting the possible collateral damage to all of the owners out there. Many of them are just trying to cover fees for points they can not use or to make a few bucks to cover their sunk purchase costs. 

I have rented from 2 Wyndham owners this year and neither of them were mega renters. They both were paid TUG members and I had to talk one owner thru the process to maximize the benefits for both of us. He was a silver VIP and he got more money when the upgade I really wanted came thru. The other owner was savey enough to give me a discount because they were already staying at the resort and could check-in for me, thus saving a GC. One was a LMR needed request and the other was a LMR. 

Wyndham is really just throwing out the babies with the bathwater instead of using the analytics they should have to stop the big guys. *WHY?*


----------



## rapmarks

Lisa P said:


> If their ownership cancelled multiple concurrent or overlapping reservations booked under the same owner name and only allowed multiple concurrent reservations with GCs once or twice per year during prime season, it would curtail their business. Doing this to cover maintenance fees on a typical account (not mega-millions of points) in some years or to provide actual occasional gifts to friends and family is not the same as the business model you've described, which is against the contract rules at a number of timeshare companies including Wyndham.


Against the contract?  Would that include checking in one room and checking in for family in another room.  Just curious. I am not a Wyndham owner


----------



## eschjw

deleted


----------



## tschwa2

rapmarks said:


> Against the contract?  Would that include checking in one room and checking in for family in another room.  Just curious. I am not a Wyndham owner


Yes.  Wyndham does not allow an owner to have more than one reservation under his/her name.  If even one night overlaps they can cancel one of the reservations.  They want the $99 guest fee even if the owner is staying in another unit.  If an ownership has more than one owner and both will be there then each owner can hold a reservation and check into that one reservation (even if they are then letting friends or family use the other unit) without paying the guest cert fee.  

If you ever confirm an RCI exchange or rental this would apply at stays with Wyndham.  They will not let one person check into multiple units.  A guest cert must be purchased for more than one units at the same resort.


----------



## CPNY

troy12n said:


> What they are saying is that if you are not online at 12:01am at exactly the 13 month mark booking your suite, you didn't plan properly and that's tough luck.
> 
> I think some of you are seeing the issue now. It's "tough luck" and "poor planning", not greedy, wanna-be travel agents playing internet slum lord from their laptop in the middle of the night...
> 
> @am1 way to try to get people on your side, lol... keep it up


This is how it is in almost all other systems as well. I already have reminders in my calendar for 11:55pm for two dates in November to check availability at a resort I want. If you can’t book midnight at the booking window don’t expect highly desired resorts during peak times. That’s not because of “mega renters” that’s just the game. If you won’t book at midnight and expect availability to be there when you want, you’re going to be upset more often than not.

You can’t blame mega renters for the lack of planning ahead. TS ownership isn’t for everyone.


----------



## T-Dot-Traveller

troy12n said:


> Because being a member of TUG obviously conveys knowledge of ownership of timeshare systems...
> 
> If anything, i've learned that TUG, in all honesty is a place where some mega renters shared some really bad advice which largely negatively affects normal owners.
> 
> This place seemed to in fact be an education forum for prospective mega renters. People like Ron were your pied piper...
> 
> I've been a timeshare owner a lot longer than i've been a member of TUG, so try again.


Hi @troy12n 
I think you are conflating the Wyndham forum with TUG. 

TUG has many forums and owners from many Timeshare systems. 
IMO - mega renting threads and discussions are mostly specific to the Wyndham Forum.

Some TUG members and guests own in multiple TS systems and view or post in multiple forums.;
while others simple stick to a specific area of interest.

TUG Lounge is an interesting source of postings about non TS topics 
that are within the guidelines of that forum.

Speaking to guest status - I hope you are enjoying the ads ; while helping support TUG and 
@TUGBrian 's commercial interests.


----------



## 55plus

Cyrus24 said:


> How many GC's are you using for the multiple 1br units in the party?  That many friends and family?  Are you receiving any compensation for those key reservations?  Are you renting out units???????  Might you also be part of the problem?


The units are for myself, brother-in-law and my military biker buddies. No rentals; the lodging is on me, the drinks, ammo (if we go shooting) and cigars are on them.


----------



## Cyrus24

55plus said:


> the lodging is on me, the drinks, ammo (if we go shooting) and cigars are on them.


In other words, you are being compensated.  So, I guess, that makes it a commercial activity.  Just trying to understand, thanks for clarifying, you are renting units during a prime travel period, taking away rooms from owners.

I'm OK with what you are doing BTW.  And, thank you for your service.


----------



## bogey21

ronparise said:


> Gorden Gekko said, "If you want a friend, get a dog".  When it comes  to timeshares, If you want a guarantee , get a fixed week



Interesting.  I came to this conclusion in the early 90s; sold my Marriotts; and bought 6 Fixed Week/Fixed Units at Independent HOA controlled Resorts.  It worked well for me.  I always knew at the beginning of the year where and when I would be going.  As an aside, I found it pretty easy to swap Weeks at no cost  just by calling the Resort's Property Manager...

George


----------



## 55plus

Mongoose said:


> I hear you, but its really changing the model to almost a franchise and makes it difficult for the "everyday family" to get the rooms they want and have invested in.  People that want to be in the hospitality business should invest in a hotel.  If Wyndham allows this and it prevents others from gaining access to rooms, then the "risk" of mega renters should be disclosed during purchase.  Still, it doesn't seem fair to change the rules midstream for those like you that have invested time and money to create a business.


Wyndham isn't charging the rules, they are now in forcing the rules that are written in the directory. By enforcing the rules Wyndham is opening up available to owners who couldn't book reservations at certain locations because of mega renters.


----------



## 55plus

Cyrus24 said:


> In other words, you are being compensated.  So, I guess, that makes it a commercial activity.  Just trying to understand, thanks for clarifying, you are renting units during a prime travel period, taking away rooms from owners.


It's not renting. I come out way behind. I maybe drink 3 beers that week, I don't smoke and I load my own ammo and only shoot my own ammo. My friend are willing to compensate me, but I don't have to accept anything. You sound angry. Were you a renter of some sort? If so, sorry if you lost income, but that's part of doing business.


----------



## 55plus

CPNY said:


> You can’t blame mega renters for the lack of planning ahead. TS ownership isn’t for everyone.


Yes, I can blame mega renters, and I, along with the majority of owners do blame them. The party is over. They should accept it and go a way gracefully instead of whining like a bunch of little school girls.


----------



## paxsarah

T-Dot-Traveller said:


> TUG has many forums and owners from many Timeshare systems.


And let’s not forget the sightings/distressed forum that is TUG members only. I mainly use it to follow Disney deposit patterns in RCI, but I know all the sightings posted there for both RCI and II are valuable for members looking to exchange in those companies. It’s also nice that members have a place to put distressed exchanges into the hands of someone who can use them.


----------



## Eric B

55plus said:


> Yes, I can blame mega renters, and I, along with the majority of owners do blame them. The party is over. They should accept it and go a way gracefully instead of wining like a bunch of little school girls.



I don’t believe @CPNY owns any Wyndham points or wines about the treatment of megarenters.


----------



## T-Dot-Traveller

Eric B said:


> I don’t believe @CPNY owns any
> ...... wines


New topic ?
LOL


----------



## Cyrus24

55plus said:


> It's not renting. I come out way behind. I maybe drink 3 beers that week, I don't smoke and I load my own ammo and only shoot my own ammo. My friend are willing to compensate me, but I don't have to accept anything. You sound angry. Were you a renter of some sort? If so, sorry if you lost income, but that's part of doing business.


Not angry, just pointing out that you are a commercial renter.  As for me, I'm no more of a commercial renter than you are.  A few GC's per year to friends and family.  Compensation comes in many forms.


----------



## paxsarah

55plus said:


> Yes, I can blame mega renters, and I, along with the majority of owners do blame them. The party is over. They should accept it and go a way gracefully instead of wining like a bunch of little school girls.


What I’ve seen here is a lot of folks, few if any of them megarenters, telling you that your problem with bike week is waiting until 7am for one of the most popular bookings in the system. You could wipe all megarenters off the face of the earth and 7am would still be 7 hours too late.


----------



## am1

troy12n said:


> What they are saying is that if you are not online at 12:01am at exactly the 13 month mark booking your suite, you didn't plan properly and that's tough luck.
> 
> I think some of you are seeing the issue now. It's "tough luck" and "poor planning", not greedy, wanna-be travel agents playing internet slum lord from their laptop in the middle of the night...
> 
> @am1 way to try to get people on your side, lol... keep it up


The thing is I am not trying to get people on my side.  I did what I did and had no issues with it.  I am no more special then anyone else at booking reservations.  I did learn a few things along the way.  But anyone can learn if they put effort in.


----------



## rickandcindy23

@ronparise


> also consider that every point purchased on the secondary market was sold by Wyndham at full price originally. Wyndham strips the VIP benefit upon resale...how fair is that??



It's a bit odd that owners who pay developer never think about the future, when they decide to get out of the timeshare and the devaluation that will occur.  There will be a time in your life when those timeshares are just going to become burdens to you, especially Wyndham, especially with their hatred of owners.   

Disney is currently selling Riviera (could be sold out now) for a ridiculous point cost.  Upon resale, the new owner will only be able to book Riviera with the points.  They won't be able to book Aulani or even Saratoga Springs.  The new owners also won't be able to book cruises or receive any other benefits of owning DVC (even Disney pass discounts).  On my Facebook DVC group (owned by Seth Nock's company), when you mention that to new buyers or people that want to buy, your comments are treated as ridiculous because, "I will never sell," or "This is why you buy from Disney direct, to get the benefits.  If you buy resale, you won't get the same product."  You cannot tell people anything, when they want what they want.  

An analogy for me is like telling my close relative about the fancy, expensive car she wanted to buy that had a lot of problems and wouldn't be a good buy.  She is okay taking it to the dealer for a recall on one minor little thing, then paying to get brakes fixed for $1,500 because they said it needed to be done.  I wouldn't be okay with that.  It's costing far more than what she thought it would.  It's a lemon.  No resale value on lemons.

Disney was known as one company that didn't strip benefits from resale, until about 10 years ago, maybe longer. I was fortunate enough to buy points at $50-60 per point before the AP discount (the only one I cared about) was taken away. Saratoga Springs is now selling for $140 per point. I would never buy at that price, and I won't sell at that price. These points have value. 

Hilton points seem to retain some value, but Disney is exceptional for increasing in value, even over developer.  I guess that is why those FB members are sold on Disney.  There will be an economic downturn, it's inevitable.  Disney points through developer were not much more, when I bought my resale points.  I remember Steamboat Bill talking about his bargains with his developer purchases.  He almost had me talked into it, but I really just wanted the AP discount.  He talked about $89 per point with two years' fees covered and free usage.  He bought a lot of Disney.  I would bet he could get over $1,000,000 if he sold what he owned right now.   I miss Steamboat Bill.


----------



## Mongoose

rickandcindy23 said:


> @ronparise
> 
> It's a bit odd that owners who pay developer never think about the future, when they decide to get out of the timeshare and the devaluation that will occur.  There will be a time in your life when those timeshares are just going to become burdens to you, especially Wyndham, especially with their hatred of owners.
> 
> Disney is currently selling Riviera (could be sold out now) for a ridiculous point cost.  Upon resale, the new owner will only be able to book Riviera with the points.  They won't be able to book Aulani or even Saratoga Springs.  The new owners also won't be able to book cruises or receive any other benefits of owning DVC (even Disney pass discounts).  On my Facebook DVC group (owned by Seth Nock's company), when you mention that to new buyers or people that want to buy, your comments are treated as ridiculous because, "I will never sell," or "This is why you buy from Disney direct, to get the benefits.  If you buy resale, you won't get the same product."  You cannot tell people anything, when they want what they want.
> 
> An analogy for me is like telling my close relative about the fancy, expensive car she wanted to buy that had a lot of problems and wouldn't be a good buy.  She is okay taking it to the dealer for a recall on one minor little thing, then paying to get brakes fixed for $1,500 because they said it needed to be done.  I wouldn't be okay with that.  It's costing far more than what she thought it would.  It's a lemon.  No resale value on lemons.
> 
> Disney was known as one company that didn't strip benefits from resale, until about 10 years ago, maybe longer. I was fortunate enough to buy points at $50-60 per point before the AP discount (the only one I cared about) was taken away. Saratoga Springs is now selling for $140 per point. I would never buy at that price, and I won't sell at that price. These points have value.
> 
> Hilton points seem to retain some value, but Disney is exceptional for increasing in value, even over developer.  I guess that is why those FB members are sold on Disney.  There will be an economic downturn, it's inevitable.  Disney points through developer were not much more, when I bought my resale points.  I remember Steamboat Bill talking about his bargains with his developer purchases.  He almost had me talked into it, but I really just wanted the AP discount.  He talked about $89 per point with two years' fees covered and free usage.  He bought a lot of Disney.  I would bet he could get over $1,000,000 if he sold what he owned right now.   I miss Steamboat Bill.


Good post.  I just don’t see how the majority of weeks and locations make any sense to buy at developer prices.  I can understand key locations and dates for skiing or holidays.  For a lot of lower seasons or demand locations, the MF are equal to what it costs to rent.


----------



## VacayKat

55plus said:


> Yes, I can blame mega renters, and I, along with the majority of owners do blame them. The party is over. They should accept it and go a way gracefully instead of whining like a bunch of little school girls.


I think that you might be over estimating how many folks agree with you. I do not even see a majority of people in this conversation in agreement with your argument. I get that you feel this way and you have a right to your feelings, but when the situation doesn’t change when Wyndham cracks down on the very small portion of owners ’megarenting’, who will your next target be? It *should* be Wyndham, and I hope you come to see that. I guess what keeps me sane in these devolving discussions is that wyndham owners on the forums are a very small portion of all owners and very few (probably none) either think about screwing other owners over or are actively angry at owners for poor availability. 
Also - your using school girls pejoratively is an offense to girls and women and I’d appreciate your using more appropriate language.


----------



## A.Win

Not all mega renters book peak weeks. Many of them use the discount/upgrade and book at lower demand resorts within 60 days. My feeling is that this is fine, and Wyndham is not upset about this. Do you all agree?

By the way, I have less than 3 million points, and I have been mostly renting them. I considered buying more, but I think it is more helpful for me to help other owners get rid of their points. I expect there will be a lot of owners that will have excess points in the next year or two.

EDITED to add: I have helped other owners use their points. I am not willing to buy their contracts because I don't want the lifetime commitment.


----------



## SueDonJ

55plus said:


> Yes, I can blame mega renters, and I, along with the majority of owners do blame them. The party is over. They should accept it and go a way gracefully instead of whining like a bunch of little school girls.



Haven't you been watching the Olympics? Girls rule, boys drool!

(A gentle reminder - if we are careful, little boys and girls will grow up without the same hurtful biases that have shaped our generation's thinking.)


----------



## CPNY

T-Dot-Traveller said:


> New topic ?
> LOL


Sure go for it


----------



## rickandcindy23

A.Win said:


> Not all mega renters book peak weeks. Many of them use the discount/upgrade and book at lower demand resorts within 60 days. My feeling is that this is fine, and Wyndham is not upset about this. Do you all agree?
> 
> By the way, I have less than 3 million points, and I have been mostly renting them. I considered buying more, but I think it is more helpful for me to help other owners get rid of their points. I expect there will be a lot of owners that will have excess points in the next year or two.


Yeah, and they will be not only free, but current costs will pay all costs of closing/ transfer, so a win-win for the new buyer and the seller.


----------



## CPNY

55plus said:


> Yes, I can blame mega renters, and I, along with the majority of owners do blame them. The party is over. They should accept it and go a way gracefully instead of whining like a bunch of little school girls.


So then you should have no problem getting the inventory you want, whenever you want. Since the mega renter issue will end, inventory will be there any time you want. Maybe now is a good time to buy some Wyndham points. I hope that’s the case for the leisure TS owner like yourself, I really do.


----------



## tschwa2

A.Win said:


> Not all mega renters book peak weeks. Many of them use the discount/upgrade and book at lower demand resorts within 60 days. My feeling is that this is fine, and Wyndham is not upset about this. Do you all agree?


I don't see that at all.  I think they would be fine with them using lower demand resorts at the full rate based on lower demand and then paying for a $99 guest cert and then renting that out.   They don't want them using their VIP discounts on resale points to then rent out at a profit.  The discounted benefits and other VIP benefits are a perk for personal and family use.   Doing a few (now with retail vip eligible points only) likely won't get anyone in trouble.  Doing it 30, 50 or 100+ times a year could be upsetting to both owners and Wyndham.


----------



## A.Win

tschwa2 said:


> I don't see that at all.  I think they would be fine with them using lower demand resorts at the full rate based on lower demand and then paying for a $99 guest cert and then renting that out.   They don't want them using their VIP discounts on resale points to then rent out at a profit.  The discounted benefits and other VIP benefits are a perk for personal and family use.   Doing a few (now with retail vip eligible points only) likely won't get anyone in trouble.  Doing it 30, 50 or 100+ times a year could be upsetting to both owners and Wyndham.



My strategy would be to rent the discounted/upgraded reservations. It is quite easy to surpass 30 or 50 reservations, because the VIP owner can get 3X more reservations than the resale owner. For example, 1 million points can get 10 reservations at lower demand resorts. But with discounts/upgrades this can be 30 reservations. 

For personal use, I can use resale points during peak season at higher demand locations.


----------



## eschjw

rapmarks said:


> Against the contract?  Would that include checking in one room and checking in for family in another room.  Just curious. I am not a Wyndham owner


I was not sure if your question was directed to me and my post #169. If it was, there were 2 member names on the contract. The wife checked into the unit reserved in her name and a few days later the husband checked into the unit in his name that we rented. We arrived early, called them and bypassed the desk. Easy peasy.


----------



## tschwa2

A.Win said:


> My strategy would be to rent the discounted/upgraded reservations. It is quite easy to surpass 30 or 50 reservations, because the VIP owner can get 3X more reservations than the resale owner. For example, 1 million points can get 10 reservations at lower demand resorts. But with discounts/upgrades this can be 30 reservations.
> 
> For personal use, I can use resale points during peak season at higher demand locations.


I don't doubt it is easy.  My personal feeling is that Wyndham will have a problem with that volume and consider it "commercial".


----------



## Herbaltees

I read through this whole thread and that other  18 page one, and I cannot understand why some people are hating on the mega-renter as if Wyndham is a poor disenfranchised mom and pop store owner.

My take is that Wyndham took serious notice of the money rentals were making in the secondary market and wants to monopolize piece of the pie.  Like someone said in the other thread Wyndham wants to be the only mega renter in the game through their EH site.

I also don't understand how getting rid of the mega renter increases availability?  I'm a  newbie resale owner, so help me understand.  If one owner with 67M points is forced to liquidate his/ her portfolio doesn't that mean there are now potentially 67 new owners with 1M points still trying to get La Belle Masion for mardi gras?  I see it getting worse not better, or am I missing something?


----------



## Mongoose

Herbaltees said:


> I read through this whole thread and that other  8 page one, and I cannot understand why some people are hating on the mega-renter as if Wyndham is a poor disenfranchised mom and pop store owner.
> 
> My take is that Wyndham took serious notice of the money rentals were making in the secondary market and wants to monopolize piece of the pie.  Like someone said in the other thread Wyndham wants to be the only mega renter in the game through their EH site.
> 
> I also don't understand how getting rid of the mega renter increases availability?  I'm a  newbie resale owner, so help me understand.  If one owner with 67M points is forced to liquidate his/ her portfolio doesn't that mean there are now potentially 67 new owners with 1M points still trying to get La Belle Masion for mardi gras?  I see it getting worse not better, or am I missing something?


I see many differences.  One is that the MRs are targeting key locations and dates.  The second is you are putting a casual family vacation planner up against a business.  Its kind of like a franchise owner of a Subway who charges $25 a sandwich because no other sandwich's are available and you are hungry against any owner who walks in to a Subway with inventory and pays a fair price of $5 for the sandwich.  Another it is a little like price gouging during as well. Also, Wyndam is a brand and has the right to control who sells their product.


----------



## Herbaltees

am1 said:


> But everyone had the same opportunity to book......
> 
> But Wyndham seems to have gone the other way with CWA.  I guess its easier to tell every owner they can book Bike Week instead of only being able to sell it to one person.



^^^ Agreed. 100% true. how many sales were generated by the same 1/2 truth. Sure you CAN stay here for bike week, but not without considerable advanced planning and some luck.


----------



## Herbaltees

Mongoose said:


> I see many differences.  One is that the MRs are targeting key locations and dates.  The second is you are putting a casual family vacation planner up against a business.  Its kind of like a franchise owner of a Subway who charges $25 a sandwich because no other sandwich's are available and you are hungry against any owner who walks in to a Subway with inventory and pays a fair price of $5 for the sandwich.  Another it is a little like price gouging during as well. Also, Wyndam is a brand and has the right to control who sells their product.



Okay didn't think of the fact that wyndham has the right to control who markets and sells their product. That is a good point.


----------



## CO skier

Herbaltees said:


> I also don't understand how getting rid of the mega renter increases availability?  I'm a  newbie resale owner, so help me understand.  If one owner with 67M points is forced to liquidate his/ her portfolio doesn't that mean there are now potentially 67 new owners with 1M points still trying to get La Belle Masion for mardi gras?  I see it getting worse not better, or am I missing something?


You must have missed the following post, which mirrors your thinking, and the reply.


tschwa2 said:


> When wyndham resells the mega renters 700 million points, you will have 2000+ regular owners booking those points so no additional inventory will open up.





CO skier said:


> The big difference, that some people just cannot understand, is that 700 million points of availability opened up that Owners will book and use for their personal vacations (undeniably a good thing for the Club and Owners), and 700 million points of availability will no longer be offered as rentals (good or bad thing does not matter, because non-owners have no status in Club Wyndham).
> 
> That is how Owners will benefit in the future at the expense of renters.  Judging by the millions of Club Wyndham points being dumped on Ebay, the improvement is already underway.




There is no guarantee that any specific inventory will open at any specific resort for any specific time.  The 700 million points of reservations must have been profitable, so they must have greater than average desirability (they were not mud week reservations, for example), so 700 million points of desirable vacations throughout Club Wyndham will be booked by owners for their personal vacations after the megarenters dropped the 700 million points of contracts.


----------



## Braindead

Can we all agree on a few items?
All rentals are commercial activity.
It doesn’t matter if you do 1 a year or a 1,000 a year it’s commercial activity.
Almost all owners have rented units. I’m in this group.
It doesn’t matter if an owner checks in for a renter or uses a GC it’s still commercial activity.
If an owner receives any compensation at all it’s a rental & commercial activity. Even if the price doesn’t cover the MFs on the points used it’s still a rental.

A couple of examples to back up the above items.
You do auto repair in your garage at home & some clients are family or friends cars while receiving any compensation even just a tip it’s commercial.
You do house cleaning & some clients are family or friends houses while receiving any compensation even just a tip it’s commercial.
An example less extreme, while staying at Canterbury in San Francisco we noticed all the mini grocery marts & they‘re commercial just like Wal Mart is commercial.

I’m not for eliminating rentals & I don’t think hardly any owners are. I don’t think Wyndham is either.
I’m not for eliminating family & friends vacations. I sure hope NO owners are either. I’m pretty sure Wyndham isn’t either.

So what’s the answer? My opinions
1. No discounts & or upgrades using GCs.
2. Resorts have to help on owners checking in for rentals. An owner doing rentals lives close by a resort & is constantly checking in. There’s only a few employees assigning unit numbers they know who they are.
3. Get control of the amount of GCs being used by a few. Raising the cost & less free ones.
4. I’m open to a family & friends list.

I’m 100% against the current blackout list ruining family & friends group vacations & hope it goes away ASAP. Tomorrow isn’t soon enough for me!!!
This is the worst thing Wyndham could’ve come up with IMHO!! Wyndham stop punishing practically all owners with the blackout list!!!!!!


----------



## Herbaltees

Braindead said:


> So what’s the answer? My opinions
> *1. No discounts & or upgrades using GCs.*
> 2. Resorts have to help on owners checking in for rentals. An owner doing rentals lives close by a resort & is constantly checking in. There’s only a few employees assigning unit numbers they know who they are.
> *3. Get control of the amount of GCs being used by a few. Raising the cost & less free ones.*
> 4. I’m open to a family & friends list.
> 
> I’m 100% against the current blackout list ruining family & friends group vacations & hope it goes away ASAP. Tomorrow isn’t soon enough for me!!!
> This is the worst thing Wyndham could’ve come up with IMHO!! Wyndham stop punishing practically all owners with the blackout list!!!!!!



1&3- But wouldn't this still an issue I know I read  MR were adding their names to the reservation and then removing later?

What is the blackout list?


----------



## Eric B

Braindead said:


> Can we all agree on a few items?
> All rentals are commercial activity.
> It doesn’t matter if you do 1 a year or a 1,000 a year it’s commercial activity.
> Almost all owners have rented units. I’m in this group.
> It doesn’t matter if an owner checks in for a renter or uses a GC it’s still commercial activity.
> If an owner receives any compensation at all it’s a rental & commercial activity. Even if the price doesn’t cover the MFs on the points used it’s still a rental.
> 
> A couple of examples to back up the above items.
> You do auto repair in your garage at home & some clients are family or friends cars while receiving any compensation even just a tip it’s commercial.
> You do house cleaning & some clients are family or friends houses while receiving any compensation even just a tip it’s commercial.
> An example less extreme, while staying at Canterbury in San Francisco we noticed all the mini grocery marts & they‘re commercial just like Wal Mart is commercial.
> 
> I’m not for eliminating rentals & I don’t think hardly any owners are. I don’t think Wyndham is either.
> I’m not for eliminating family & friends vacations. I sure hope NO owners are either. I’m pretty sure Wyndham isn’t either.
> 
> So what’s the answer? My opinions
> 1. No discounts & or upgrades using GCs.
> 2. Resorts have to help on owners checking in for rentals. An owner doing rentals lives close by a resort & is constantly checking in. There’s only a few employees assigning unit numbers they know who they are.
> 3. Get control of the amount of GCs being used by a few. Raising the cost & less free ones.
> 4. I’m open to a family & friends list.
> 
> I’m 100% against the current blackout list ruining family & friends group vacations & hope it goes away ASAP. Tomorrow isn’t soon enough for me!!!
> This is the worst thing Wyndham could’ve come up with IMHO!! Wyndham stop punishing practically all owners with the blackout list!!!!!!



The answer to your first question is probably "no, we can't all agree on those items."  I for one have been prevented by an external entity (the IRS) from taking passive activity losses against my ordinary income to gain the tax benefits for having a rental that is losing money in the short term because I don't meet specific criteria to be considered doing it as a business (IIRC, spending in excess of 750 hours per year on my rentals, earning more than 50% of my income from them).  If I am not considered by the Federal government to be engaged in a commercial enterprise that can lose money, why should I be considered engaging in commercial use of my timeshare if I rent the usage to someone else to just cover my maintenance fees?  It's all really a very context-specific decision on whether someone is doing something for "commercial purposes," which is what the directory says the program is not for.  (The actual wording used is "The Program is for a Member’s own personal use and enjoyment and not for any commercial purposes."  It's on page 254.  It is written as a statement about the purpose of Club Wyndham Plus, not a directive that members cannot rent their points.  This is at the heart of what the problem is - Wyndham has done a poor job of stating what is and what is not acceptable behavior.)


----------



## VacayKat

Braindead said:


> Can we all agree on a few items?
> All rentals are commercial activity.
> It doesn’t matter if you do 1 a year or a 1,000 a year it’s commercial activity.
> Almost all owners have rented units. I’m in this group.
> It doesn’t matter if an owner checks in for a renter or uses a GC it’s still commercial activity.
> If an owner receives any compensation at all it’s a rental & commercial activity. Even if the price doesn’t cover the MFs on the points used it’s still a rental.
> 
> A couple of examples to back up the above items.
> You do auto repair in your garage at home & some clients are family or friends cars while receiving any compensation even just a tip it’s commercial.
> You do house cleaning & some clients are family or friends houses while receiving any compensation even just a tip it’s commercial.
> An example less extreme, while staying at Canterbury in San Francisco we noticed all the mini grocery marts & they‘re commercial just like Wal Mart is commercial.
> 
> I’m not for eliminating rentals & I don’t think hardly any owners are. I don’t think Wyndham is either.
> I’m not for eliminating family & friends vacations. I sure hope NO owners are either. I’m pretty sure Wyndham isn’t either.
> 
> So what’s the answer? My opinions
> 1. No discounts & or upgrades using GCs.
> 2. Resorts have to help on owners checking in for rentals. An owner doing rentals lives close by a resort & is constantly checking in. There’s only a few employees assigning unit numbers they know who they are.
> 3. Get control of the amount of GCs being used by a few. Raising the cost & less free ones.
> 4. I’m open to a family & friends list.
> 
> I’m 100% against the current blackout list ruining family & friends group vacations & hope it goes away ASAP. Tomorrow isn’t soon enough for me!!!
> This is the worst thing Wyndham could’ve come up with IMHO!! Wyndham stop punishing practically all owners with the blackout list!!!!!!


I disagree with your #1 - I try to maximize my points even MORE when there are family members traveling with us. For my family I'd book a 1-bed which is squishy and hope to GOD for a 2-bed upgrade, and I will do that for extended family as well. Also - who wouldn't want to give a family member a last minute quick get away if it was available in the discount period and didn't take that many points? Also, the few times I've rented to recoup some $$, I did it with the dregs of the inventory left in the 60 day window- if you make me pay full point cost for it then I'm going to book the highest demand resort at the highest demand week so I can get maximum compensation. That just shoots everyone in the foot if the goal is to reduce renters holding inventory and releasing it.


----------



## Cyrus24

Agree with everything you state.  Don’t like no discounts or upgrades when using GCs.  But, I could live with it.  


Braindead said:


> 1. No discounts & or upgrades using GCs


----------



## CO skier

Braindead said:


> I’m 100% against the current blackout list ruining family & friends group vacations & hope it goes away ASAP. Tomorrow isn’t soon enough for me!!!
> This is the worst thing Wyndham could’ve come up with IMHO!! Wyndham stop punishing practically all owners with the blackout list!!!!!!


There are many people who want Club Wyndham customized for their particular usage pattern.  I thought that up to an additional 9 reservations were allowed for "family & friends groups" if the owner's reservation overlapped.  That seems generous.

In WorldMark, less than 20% of owners add a guest to a reservation.  WorldMark does not offer a 50% discount to VIPs, so the percentage is probably somewhat higher in Club Wyndham due to commercial renting based on the 50% discount.  It is reasonable, though, to surmise that the changes in Club Wyndham that affect guest usage definitely are not "punishing all owners."


----------



## paxsarah

CO skier said:


> so 700 million points of desirable vacations throughout Club Wyndham will be booked by owners for their personal vacations after the megarenters dropped the 700 million points of contracts.


In order for that 700 million points of availability to become available to owners, those contracts must have been sold (whether through resale or repackaged by Wyndham as retail) to new owners. As I see it, the equation is now:
(Preexisting owners) - (eliminated megarenters) + (new owners who purchased MR points) = competition for reservations 

As an existing owner, am I not still in basically the same level of competition for reservations, just different people own some of the points now? My personal availability does not improve. I understand the argument that the goal is to get more “regular” owners and fewer renters into reservations, and I see how this is true in the aggregate. I do not see how it benefits existing owners, unless I’m supposed to feel better knowing that my competition for reservations is now more regular folk like me and not those horrible megarenters. But I don’t feel better, because I simply don’t care.


----------



## troy12n

Eric B said:


> The answer to your first question is probably "no, we can't all agree on those items."  I for one have been prevented by an external entity (the IRS) from taking passive activity losses against my ordinary income to gain the tax benefits for having a rental that is losing money in the short term because I don't meet specific criteria to be considered doing it as a business (IIRC, spending in excess of 750 hours per year on my rentals, earning more than 50% of my income from them).  If I am not considered by the Federal government to be engaged in a commercial enterprise that can lose money, why should I be considered engaging in commercial use of my timeshare if I rent the usage to someone else to just cover my maintenance fees?  It's all really a very context-specific decision on whether someone is doing something for "commercial purposes," which is what the directory says the program is not for.  (The actual wording used is "The Program is for a Member’s own personal use and enjoyment and not for any commercial purposes."  It's on page 254.  It is written as a statement about the purpose of Club Wyndham Plus, not a directive that members cannot rent their points.  This is at the heart of what the problem is - Wyndham has done a poor job of stating what is and what is not acceptable behavior.)



Gonna throw it out there that even if you can't claim passive losses on your timeshare adventures, you are still required by the IRS to pay income tax on it. On top of that, you have to pay the "self employment tax". Self employment income is, in fact, considered business income. It's even taxed higher because of that.

You can't have it both ways on this item. Furthermore, regardless of what the IRS says, most states and even some municipalities have even further requirements on what constitutes a business enterprise. Specifically those businesses involving sales. In some states you have to file quarterly reports with the state BPR, there are also in some cases licensing requirements, etc. 

So no, your argument really falls flat on it's face.


----------



## rapmarks

I have to say I am feeling the pain of losing out to renters at Christmas Mountain.  I have been trying since April to book my flex weeks so my sisters can come for a visit, totally open on any time. I call and not even two nights available, even though traditionally end of august and month of September are slow.  I am told a date is available and to call the next day.  I call at opening and there is no availability for anything.  Then I see posts on Facebook renting the times I have tried to get. 
 A Tugger from the past used to boast about all his bookings.  He would have a dozen bookings for the same week and if he didn't rent them, he would just let them sit empty, because the system didn't charge him if he didn't check in.  Meanwhile no availability .
I think favoritism is not happening now, but it did several years ago.  The ownership gives one red week at a time  A woman used to come and use her red week for 16 days, the limit was 7, go home for a week, back for 16 days, all through the summer.  then she would travel all winter on her spacebanked weeks through RCI.  No way it is possible unless someone is helping out.  She would claim the extra weekend was bonus time, and she did it for years.
I can see why people are resentful of mega renters, such as renters who book bonus time which is supposed to be for personal use and rent it out.


----------



## VacayKat

troy12n said:


> Gonna throw it out there that even if you can't claim passive losses on your timeshare adventures, you are still required by the IRS to pay income tax on it. On top of that, you have to pay the "self employment tax". Self employment income is, in fact, considered business income. It's even taxed higher because of that.
> 
> You can't have it both ways on this item. Furthermore, regardless of what the IRS says, most states and even some municipalities have even further requirements on what constitutes a business enterprise. Specifically those businesses involving sales. In some states you have to file quarterly reports with the state BPR, there are also in some cases licensing requirements, etc.
> 
> So no, your argument really falls flat on it's face.


But you did make an excellent reminder to all the folks who use craigslist, garage sales or person to person sales for any of their belongings or anything they create [or for that matter receive gifts] - they are obligated to do exactly as you mention- PSA to all folks who get any money for anything, if you do not report it on your tax filings, you could end up just like Al Capone!


----------



## Roger830

VacayKat said:


> But you did make an excellent reminder to all the folks who use craigslist, garage sales or person to person sales for any of their belongings or anything they create [or for that matter receive gifts] - they are obligated to do exactly as you mention- PSA to all folks who get any money for anything, if you do not report it on your tax filings, you could end up just like Al Capone!



Yeh! 
And pay tax on the money received for attending sales presentations, I mean updates.


----------



## troy12n

VacayKat said:


> But you did make an excellent reminder to all the folks who use craigslist, garage sales or person to person sales for any of their belongings or anything they create [or for that matter receive gifts] - they are obligated to do exactly as you mention- PSA to all folks who get any money for anything, if you do not report it on your tax filings, you could end up just like Al Capone!



Again, the absurdity of your arguments comes screaming through... the lengths some of you will go to to justify your actions


----------



## VacayKat

troy12n said:


> Again, the absurdity of your arguments comes screaming through... the lengths some of you will go to to justify your actions


WTH? literally I supported your position and you attack me? I guess it is time to stop seeing your posts.


----------



## Mongoose

VacayKat said:


> I disagree with your #1 - I try to maximize my points even MORE when there are family members traveling with us. For my family I'd book a 1-bed which is squishy and hope to GOD for a 2-bed upgrade, and I will do that for extended family as well. Also - who wouldn't want to give a family member a last minute quick get away if it was available in the discount period and didn't take that many points? Also, the few times I've rented to recoup some $$, I did it with the dregs of the inventory left in the 60 day window- if you make me pay full point cost for it then I'm going to book the highest demand resort at the highest demand week so I can get maximum compensation. That just shoots everyone in the foot if the goal is to reduce renters holding inventory and releasing it.


I also disagree with point #1.  I have rented rooms at the last minute when I had points expiring.  I did this  to avoid the loss of MFs and rented them at discounted prices.  I don't think renting at a loss to avoid point forfeiture is the same as a MR that goes out of his way to make it a business.  I think they should simply limit Rentals/GC's to 2 plus a maximum of 20% of your points.  The majority of your TS activity should be your own stays.


----------



## troy12n

VacayKat said:


> WTH? literally I supported your position and you attack me? I guess it is time to stop seeing your posts.



Do what you need to do. But you compared people making thousands of dollars in undocumented income to someone who might make $150 from a day of selling their junk at a garage sale... come on now


----------



## Mongoose

VacayKat said:


> But you did make an excellent reminder to all the folks who use craigslist, garage sales or person to person sales for any of their belongings or anything they create [or for that matter receive gifts] - they are obligated to do exactly as you mention- PSA to all folks who *get any money for anything,* if you do not report it on your tax filings, you could end up just like Al Capone!


If you are selling something for less than you paid for it its not income.  Example, a garage sale where your wife sells a $150 Coach purse for $1.   Yep, experienced that one as well.  

*Casual sellers engage in infrequent sales*
When the sales price is less than what was originally paid for an item, no capital gain is realized. If you purchased a new lawn mower for $250 and later sold it for $50, that is not a $50 capital gain. Instead it is a $200 personal loss, which isn’t tax deductible.


----------



## CO skier

paxsarah said:


> In order for that 700 million points of availability to become available to owners, those contracts must have been sold (whether through resale or repackaged by Wyndham as retail) to new owners.


This is not true.  The Club inventory represented by the 700 million points is continuously available for any member to book during sales and transfer time.  Wyndham does not withdraw X number of that 700 million points that that they take back through Certified Exit from Club Wyndham; it remains available for booking throughout the holding, sale and transfer time, just like a private sale.  Unlike a private sale, Wyndham's use of its share of that 700 million points is restricted to 60-days, so >60-day availability definitely increases and especially in the short term until all of Wyndham's share of the 700 million points are sold.




paxsarah said:


> As I see it, the equation is now:
> (Preexisting owners) - (eliminated megarenters) + (new owners who purchased MR points) = competition for reservations
> 
> As an existing owner, am I not still in basically the same level of competition for reservations, just different people own some of the points now? My personal availability does not improve.


Let us look at how your equation works for 13-month reservations where, statistically, only about 10% of the resold 700 million points would be targeted at the 13-month booking window

(Preexisting owners who book at 13 months) - (eliminated megarenters who book at 13 months) + (new owners who purchased MR points) - (90% of new owners who purchased MR points and do not book at 13 months) = noticeably less competition for reservations at 13 months




paxsarah said:


> I understand the argument that the goal is to get more “regular” owners and fewer renters into reservations, and I see how this is true in the aggregate. I do not see how it benefits existing owners, unless I’m supposed to feel better knowing that my competition for reservations is now more regular folk like me and not those horrible megarenters. But I don’t feel better, because I simply don’t care.


You understand how there will be more "regular" owners reservations and fewer renter reservations, but you do not see how it benefits existing owners?

It will be some existing owners and some new owners of the 700 million ex-MR points who will be staying in the units previous occupied by the renters.

Total availability did not change, but there will definitely be more Club Wyndham members staying in Club Wyndham units.  "Member availability" increased and "Guest availability" decreased.  Members seem to be more interested in "Member availability" than "Total availability."


----------



## troy12n

Mongoose said:


> If you are selling something for less than you paid for it its not income.  Example, a garage sale where your wife sells a $150 Coach purse for $1.   Yep, experienced that one as well.



Again, the lengths people will go to, to support their flawed position, or their untenable actions... 

I've seen a lot of really, really stupid suggestions in some of these threads, but this one has to be the worst


----------



## ronparise

I’m not trying to change any minds either, (maybe just open some)

there are systemic problems with points based timeshare systems that go deeper than just commercial use. The mega renters no doubt caused some problems, but not all of them.

There are only so many condos in Orlando. not every owners kid is going to get to see Mickey

there will still be couples like my wife and I that need a two bedroom unit (one of us snores) that ice the families with kids out of the larger units

But mainly there will still be owners, that feel entitled to what they want when they want it,,, and that’s a problem that getting rid of the mega renters won’t solve


----------



## Mongoose

.


----------



## Mongoose

troy12n said:


> Again, the lengths people will go to, to support their flawed position, or their untenable actions...
> 
> I've seen a lot of really, really stupid suggestions in some of these threads, but this one has to be the worst


Sounds like you need a vacation.  Have you tried a timeshare  

There's a completely legal way around these limitations, though. As long as you rent your timeshare out for *15 or fewer days per year,* the IRS turns a blind eye to it. You won't be able to write off any rental expenses, but you won't have to report the rental income that you get either. While it's not a tax break if you lose money on the rental, it is if you can rent it out profitably. Either way, the whole transaction is tax-free, as described in the IRS' own Publication 527 on Residential Rental Property rules.

Tax Breaks on Timeshares (zacks.com)


----------



## VacayKat

Mongoose said:


> If you are selling something for less than you paid for it its not income.  Example, a garage sale where your wife sells a $150 Coach purse for $1.   Yep, experienced that one as well.
> 
> *Casual sellers engage in infrequent sales*
> When the sales price is less than what was originally paid for an item, no capital gain is realized. If you purchased a new lawn mower for $250 and later sold it for $50, that is not a $50 capital gain. Instead it is a $200 personal loss, which isn’t tax deductible.


yep... but if you got that lawnmower from a neighbor moving and sold it for $50 at a garage sale, it's taxable. IRS laws are special. (also, I may have resembled your wife at garage sales, lol)


----------



## SmithOp

troy12n said:


> On top of that, you have to pay the "self employment tax". Self employment income is, in fact, considered business income. It's even taxed higher because of that.
> .



SE income is taxed at the same rate, income is income.

The additional tax you are referring to is Medicare and Social Security taxes, which are paid 100% by self employed when they file taxes. 

W-2 workers pay 1/2 of Medicare and SS taxes as payroll deductions, the employer pays the other 1/2. So its the same tax, just collected as its earned instead of at filing time.


----------



## VacayKat

Mongoose said:


> Sounds like you need a vacation.  Have you tried a timeshare
> 
> There's a completely legal way around these limitations, though. As long as you rent your timeshare out for *15 or fewer days per year,* the IRS turns a blind eye to it. You won't be able to write off any rental expenses, but you won't have to report the rental income that you get either. While it's not a tax break if you lose money on the rental, it is if you can rent it out profitably. Either way, the whole transaction is tax-free, as described in the IRS' own Publication 527 on Residential Rental Property rules.
> 
> Tax Breaks on Timeshares (zacks.com)


Not sure this is true (or if it is, it's state dependent) - our tax guy said that without actual real property attached, timeshares do not get this loophole. That's for real property, like renting your home on airbnb.. It's $600 (per year), anything above you report, anything below you should still report, but IRS isn't coming after you for it. (*edited* to add, also you can't deduct anything from this, because IRS doesn't consider timeshare to be property for these purposes, so no tax loss credits to the income, and any income gotten from the rental is reportable as there are no tax shelters for time share rentals at all)


----------



## Mongoose

VacayKat said:


> Not sure this is true (or if it is, it's state dependent) - our tax guy said that without actual real property attached, timeshares do not get this loophole. That's for real property, like renting your home on airbnb.. It's $600 (per year), anything above you report, anything below you should still report, but IRS isn't coming after you for it. (*edited* to add, also you can't deduct anything from this, because IRS doesn't consider timeshare to be property for these purposes, so no tax loss credits to the income, and any income gotten from the rental is reportable as there are no tax shelters for time share rentals at all)


I'm certainly not a CPA, but look at post 225 and the linked article.


----------



## Eric B

SmithOp said:


> SE income is taxed at the same rate, income is income.
> 
> The additional tax you are referring to is Medicare and Social Security taxes, which are paid 100% by self employed when they file taxes.
> 
> W-2 workers pay 1/2 of Medicare and SS taxes as payroll deductions, the employer pays the other 1/2. So its the same tax, just collected as its earned instead of at filing time.



Not sure what you're replying to, but SE taxes are a bit more complicated than that.  Here's one part of the guidance the IRS provides at https://www.irs.gov/businesses/smal...oyment-tax-social-security-and-medicare-taxes:

If your wages and tips are subject to either social security tax or the Tier 1 part of railroad retirement tax, or both, and total at least $137,700, do not pay the 12.4% social security part of the SE tax on any of your net earnings. However, you must pay the 2.9% Medicare part of the SE tax on all your net earnings.

Bottom line is that if you rent out a timeshare and actually have earnings from it, you don't pay the social security side of it unless your other wages are less than the limit ($137,700 in 2020, just moved up to $142,800 for 2021).  You're still supposed to pay the Medicare portion on your net earnings.

As always, consult a tax attorney or CPA if you have any issues for which you would like legal advice.  This post (and most of the others on the internet) is not intended as and should not be considered legal advice.


----------



## clifffaith

VacayKat said:


> yep... but if you got that lawnmower from a neighbor moving and sold it for $50 at a garage sale, it's taxable. IRS laws are special. (also, I may have resembled your wife at garage sales, lol)



Have to start saving receipts for everything now. Starting next year eBay will be issuing 1099s for cumulative sales over $600. Supposed to be keeping track of garage sales too.


----------



## Mongoose

clifffaith said:


> Have to start saving receipts for everything now. S*tarting next year eBay will be issuing 1099s* for cumulative sales over $600. Supposed to be keeping track of garage sales too.


That really sucks.  I often make small sales on ebay every year, typically selling items at a loss that I no longer want to need.  I'll have to learn more about that. This could really hit their sales.  Small sellers just won't want to deal with it.


----------



## VacayKat

Mongoose said:


> I'm certainly not a CPA, but look at post 225 and the linked article.


I don't see the link- if you get a chance can you pm me it?
However, what I wrote is what my CPA did tell me after he dug into the tax laws because I wanted to be sure I was reporting to the IRS everything we had to, but also not paying taxes we didn't have to. He said it did not apply. And since he was preparing our taxes, he won't file them unless everything complies with the law - if he did he could go to jail. Long story short he said in the future if we don't want to pay taxes it has to be under the $600 total for ALL non-w-2 income. Basically what he intimated was, if you want to rent any of them, suck it up and pay the taxes, so we do. It's sucky though, because what we rent is at most 1/15 to 1/20 of what we pay in MF and I only charge the MF cost plus the tax cost that I'll pay to renters, so it's not like I'm making an actual profit.


----------



## Mongoose

VacayKat said:


> I don't see the link- if you get a chance can you pm me it?
> However, what I wrote is what my CPA did tell me after he dug into the tax laws because I wanted to be sure I was reporting to the IRS everything we had to, but also not paying taxes we didn't have to. He said it did not apply. And since he was preparing our taxes, he won't file them unless everything complies with the law - if he did he could go to jail. Long story short he said in the future if we don't want to pay taxes it has to be under the $600 total for ALL non-w-2 income. Basically what he intimated was, if you want to rent any of them, suck it up and pay the taxes, so we do. It's sucky though, because what we rent is at most 1/15 to 1/20 of what we pay in MF and I only charge the MF cost plus the tax cost that I'll pay to renters, so it's not like I'm making an actual profit.











						Tax Breaks on Timeshares
					

Timeshares, which are arrangements by which you purchase the right to use a unit at a property for a period of time, remain controversial among financial advisors. On one hand, they allow you to lock in vacation property for an extended period of time at a relatively fixed cost. On the other...




					finance.zacks.com


----------



## Eric B

VacayKat said:


> Not sure this is true (or if it is, it's state dependent) - our tax guy said that without actual real property attached, timeshares do not get this loophole. That's for real property, like renting your home on airbnb.. It's $600 (per year), anything above you report, anything below you should still report, but IRS isn't coming after you for it. (*edited* to add, also you can't deduct anything from this, because IRS doesn't consider timeshare to be property for these purposes, so no tax loss credits to the income, and any income gotten from the rental is reportable as there are no tax shelters for time share rentals at all)





Mongoose said:


> I'm certainly not a CPA, but look at post 225 and the linked article.



Taxation of timeshare rental income can be pretty complicated depending on the circumstances.  I'm certainly not an expert on it, but it does strike me that if you are renting out a week stay that you booked at a different resort than you own using a system like CWP, you aren't doing something terribly similar to renting out a vacation home for which you could depreciate the underlying cost of the resort ownership assignable to you.  If you were renting out a fixed week at a fixed resort, the analysis would probably be different - you own 1/52 of that particular unit and could depreciate and expense it.  The first seems to me to be the behavior that Wyndham is trying to disincentivize, and I believe they would have a valid point if they did it properly.


----------



## VacayKat

Mongoose said:


> That really sucks.  I often make small sales on ebay every year.  Typically selling items at a loss that I no longer want to need.  I'll have to learn more about that.


It's also covered by that $600 rule - if you don't want to worry about it, keep it under that amount. Otherwise, just keep receipts - another way would be to look up what the item is currently selling for, take a screen shot of it, and then keep that with what you sold the item for, it will show a loss.


----------



## Mongoose

Eric B said:


> Taxation of timeshare rental income can be pretty complicated depending on the circumstances.  I'm certainly not an expert on it, but it does strike me that if you are renting out a week stay that you booked at a different resort than you own using a system like CWP, you aren't doing something terribly similar to renting out a vacation home for which you could depreciate the underlying cost of the resort ownership assignable to you.  If you were renting out a fixed week at a fixed resort, the analysis would probably be different - you own 1/52 of that particular unit and could depreciate and expense it.  The first seems to me to be the behavior that Wyndham is trying to disincentivize, and I believe they would have a valid point if they did it properly.


Here is a little more.  Tax Aspects of Renting Your Timeshare | RedWeek


----------



## VacayKat

Mongoose said:


> Tax Breaks on Timeshares
> 
> 
> Timeshares, which are arrangements by which you purchase the right to use a unit at a property for a period of time, remain controversial among financial advisors. On one hand, they allow you to lock in vacation property for an extended period of time at a relatively fixed cost. On the other...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> finance.zacks.com


ah... I see where you're missing it. that 15 days is for property used as a home. Timeshares do not qualify. quoting from the IRS "
Used as a home but rented less than 15 days. If you use a dwelling unit as a home and you rent it less than 15 days during the year, its primary function isn’t considered to be rental and it shouldn’t be reported on Schedule E (Form 1040). You aren’t required to report the rental income and rental expenses from this activity."
Timeshare would qualify under this category: "Not used as a home. If you use a dwelling unit for personal purposes, but not as a home, report all the rental income in your income. Because you used the dwelling unit for personal purposes, you must divide your expenses between the rental use and the personal use as described earlier in this chapter under Dividing Expenses. The expenses for personal use aren’t deductible as rental expenses. Your deductible rental expenses can be more than your gross rental income; however, see Limits on Rental Losses in chapter 3." again quoting from IRS (https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p527.pdf )
Either way, my CPA is an expert, I'm going with his advice on this, and that is - it is income.


----------



## VacayKat

Eric B said:


> Taxation of timeshare rental income can be pretty complicated depending on the circumstances.  I'm certainly not an expert on it, but it does strike me that if you are renting out a week stay that you booked at a different resort than you own using a system like CWP, you aren't doing something terribly similar to renting out a vacation home for which you could depreciate the underlying cost of the resort ownership assignable to you.  If you were renting out a fixed week at a fixed resort, the analysis would probably be different - you own 1/52 of that particular unit and could depreciate and expense it.  The first seems to me to be the behavior that Wyndham is trying to disincentivize, and I believe they would have a valid point if they did it properly.


I got a good giggle out of "terribly similar'. When it comes to IRS, I follow the rules to a T and recommend everyone else does too. Super sucks to do the right thing, but way better than a jail sentence!


----------



## Mongoose

VacayKat said:


> ah... I see where you're missing it. that 15 days is for property used as a home. Timeshares do not qualify. quoting from the IRS "
> Used as a home but rented less than 15 days. If you use a dwelling unit as a home and you rent it less than 15 days during the year, its primary function isn’t considered to be rental and it shouldn’t be reported on Schedule E (Form 1040). You aren’t required to report the rental income and rental expenses from this activity."
> Timeshare would qualify under this category: "Not used as a home. If you use a dwelling unit for personal purposes, but not as a home, report all the rental income in your income. Because you used the dwelling unit for personal purposes, you must divide your expenses between the rental use and the personal use as described earlier in this chapter under Dividing Expenses. The expenses for personal use aren’t deductible as rental expenses. Your deductible rental expenses can be more than your gross rental income; however, see Limits on Rental Losses in chapter 3." again quoting from IRS (https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p527.pdf )
> Either way, my CPA is an expert, I'm going with his advice on this, and that is - it is income.


Probably a good idea!


----------



## comicbookman

HitchHiker71 said:


> Assuming an average points per reservation of 150k per transaction - that would equate to 467 rental reservations that were denied to actual Wyndham owners.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Not a mega renter myself, nor a supporter, but Since these reservations are being made by people who own the points involved, no reservations are being denied to actual Wyndham owners.


----------



## troy12n

SmithOp said:


> SE income is taxed at the same rate, income is income.
> 
> The additional tax you are referring to is Medicare and Social Security taxes, which are paid 100% by self employed when they file taxes.
> 
> W-2 workers pay 1/2 of Medicare and SS taxes as payroll deductions, the employer pays the other 1/2. So its the same tax, just collected as its earned instead of at filing time.



You have to pay additional "self employment tax"... look it up. All self employed or contractors (1099) employees have to pay this. I know because I was a contractor for several years, and while the base tax rate is the same, you have to pay additional "self employment tax" because your employer isn't paying payroll taxes on you/for you...  Look it up.


----------



## troy12n

VacayKat said:


> Either way, my CPA is an expert, I'm going with his advice on this, and that is - it is income.



There is "letter of the law", and there is "spirit of the law". 

While, from a "letter of the law", you are probably right to say that someone making $150 total at a garage sale selling their own junk may in fact owe on that. The IRS certainly is not going to enforce it. 

Whereas, people making tens of thousands of dollars by renting timeshares is certainly something the IRS, if it had knowledge of it, would actively enforce. I know people who have had rental homes who didn't claim the income and got stuck with huge back tax bills, and penalties. It's not something they would enforce with jail time, but they want their money. 

Ignoring this isn't smart.


----------



## paxsarah

CO skier said:


> You understand how there will be more "regular" owners reservations and fewer renter reservations, but you do not see how it benefits existing owners?


Yes, that's what I said. I understand that there will be more "regular" owners in total, as some number of megarenters will be replaced by some (presumably much greater) number of "regular" owners. Thus, a greater number of "regular" owners will be able to book reservations. However, I'm still up against the same total number of points chasing the same amount of availability, so I don't see how any existing current "regular" owner is any better off once we've replaced some megarenters with regular owners. In fact, because we can assume each megarenter is replaced by numerous regular owners, for instance at 13 months, instead of one megarenter trying to snatch up 10 reservations at a lucrative location but who has to do so consecutively, I'm up against multiple regular owners who can all book right at midnight simultaneously.

So again, I don't see how I, as an individual existing regular owner, gets any benefit in terms of availability once the points from megarenters have made their way into new "regular" owner hands.


----------



## paxsarah

CO skier said:


> Unlike a private sale, *Wyndham's use of its share of that 700 million points is restricted to 60-days*, so >60-day availability definitely increases and especially in the short term until all of Wyndham's share of the 700 million points are sold.


I don't think this is true, according to the VOA docs posted in the sticky.


pacodemountainside said:


> 11.08 Wyndham Use. *In addition to the right of Wyndham, as a Member and owner of Points, to make reservations using those Points at any time*, Wyndham, in its capacity as the developer of resort communities and Vacation Plans, may reserve available Accommodations up to 60 days in advance of the first day of anticipated occupancy, for its own purposes, including renting to the public, provided it pays or otherwise causes a third party to pay the occupancy related expenses of such Accommodations for each night to be used. All such occupancy related expenses shall be determined by the Trustee. As a result of Wyndham’s use there will be less space available for Member use; however, Wyndham may not reserve the last 10% of available occupancy for a type of Accommodation until 30 days prior to the first day of intended use.



I'm not a lawyer so I could be reading this wrong, but as I read it, Wyndham can book with the points it owns itself at any point as any owner could. The 60-day use is of any remaining accommodations that Wyndham can just take for rental or whatever, which it has to ensure is paid for, though it cannot book the last 10% of occupancy until 30 days.


----------



## Eric B

VacayKat said:


> I got a good giggle out of "terribly similar'. When it comes to IRS, I follow the rules to a T and recommend everyone else does too. Super sucks to do the right thing, but way better than a jail sentence!



I do try to be circumspect and avoid jumping to conclusions about people’s circumstances. Might be a weakness, but I’m okay with that.

For dealing with the IRS, I follow the same principles.  When my house burned down 15 years ago, my tax filings weighed about 5 pounds because I had to list every item, the purchase prices, fair market values and what the insurance paid me - all for a net loss/gain of zero.


----------



## paxsarah

I will concede, the one way I think a current regular owner would see benefit is from the principle behind fitness memberships - it only works if some people never show up. So unlike a megarenter who we know was eking use out of every single point of their ownership as much as possible, of the 25 or 50 or 100 or whatever number of regular owners replace them, some of them are going to be slackers who don't use or underutilize their ownership. On FB there are plenty of people who say, "I bought three years ago but I've never taken a trip," or "My dad has owned for 20 years but hasn't used his points in the last 10," etc. Those people are how we benefit. Yay.


----------



## Mongoose

There is a sale on ebay right now for 1.6M points with 3 hours left.  The current bid is $102.00.  The MF are $10K annually.  Maybe a MR selling off his points?  I can only image what the develop cost was on this maybe $250K.


----------



## vv813

ok i havent read all conversation posts but I thought lawsuit said she has 67 million points.  somehow I have missed how this became 700000 million.


----------



## Eric B

vv813 said:


> ok i havent read all conversation posts but I thought lawsuit said she has 67 million points.  somehow I have missed how this became 700000 million.



Someone’s guess as to how many are owned by megarenters.  Don’t know the provenance.

Does anyone know how many CWP points there are in existence?  Is 700 million a significant percentage?


----------



## CO skier

vv813 said:


> ok i havent read all conversation posts but I thought lawsuit said she has 67 million points.  somehow I have missed how this became 700000 million.


Wyndham forum threads typically go off-topic within the first page.  This thread is one of the worst for wildly off-topic posts.  The last post related to post #1 was on page 6.

The 700 million points was some random number in an off-topic post on page 1 completely unrelated to the 67 million points.


----------



## raygo123

CO skier said:


> Wyndham forum threads typically go off-topic within the first page. This thread is one of the worst for wildly off-topic posts. The last post related to post #1 was on page 6.
> 
> The 700 million points was some random number in an off-topic post on page 1 completely unrelated to the 67 million points.


No. It's a case of new math!

Sent from my Lenovo TB-X606F using Tapatalk


----------



## tschwa2

.


Eric B said:


> Someone’s guess as to how many are owned by megarenters.  Don’t know the provenance.
> 
> Does anyone know how many CWP points there are in existence?  Is 700 million a significant percentage?


Yes just a round number. A billion seemed to high.  Wyndham isn't trying to get rid of only this one member, even if she is on the higher end of the ownership equation. If she had 67 million there are probably another couple with 20+ million, and a bunch of 3-10+ million owners.


----------



## VacayKat

Eric B said:


> Someone’s guess as to how many are owned by megarenters.  Don’t know the provenance.
> 
> Does anyone know how many CWP points there are in existence?  Is 700 million a significant percentage?


So CWA points on 2021 were :51,686,105,449
2020 points were: 48,264,033,449

it is on the financials they send out each year (doesn’t include all the other resorts, just CWA specific points)


----------



## Eric B

CO skier said:


> Wyndham forum threads typically go off-topic within the first page.  This thread is one of the worst for wildly off-topic posts.  The last post related to post #1 was on page 6.
> 
> The 700 million points was some random number in an off-topic post on page 1 completely unrelated to the 67 million points.



Now I feel even worse about not policing a thread I started than I did when I decided not to call someone a hypocrite.


----------



## Eric B

VacayKat said:


> So CWA points on 2021 were :51,686,105,449
> 2020 points were: 48,264,033,449
> 
> it is on the financials they send out each year (doesn’t include all the other resorts, just CWA specific points)



So we’re talking about ~1%?


----------



## VacayKat

Eric B said:


> So we’re talking about ~1%?


If they are all CWA points, which is unlikely. Far less if you count all wyndham inventory.


----------



## VacayKat

Was looking deeper into the financials.
It appears that in 2020 the developer paid $45,984,193 to the association (CWA) for any unsold points in any given month, at the same rate as other owners($6.28/1000). If we pretend it was the same # of points each month (aka average the costs) it means for CWA Wyndham owns 73,223,237,300 CWA points at any given month in 2020. (Someone check the math, it is Sunday so math free zone, could be way off, lol) So, if the math is correct, this makes Wyndham’s use far greater than any megarenter, and this is just the CWA inventory.


----------



## raygo123

VacayKat said:


> Was looking deeper into the financials.
> It appears that in 2020 the developer paid $45,984,193 to the association (CWA) for any unsold points in any given month, at the same rate as other owners($6.28/1000). If we pretend it was the same # of points each month (aka average the costs) it means for CWA Wyndham owns 73,223,237,300 CWA points at any given month in 2020. (Someone check the math, it is Sunday so math free zone, could be way off, lol) So, if the math is correct, this makes Wyndham’s use far greater than any megarenter, and this is just the CWA inventory.


Wyndham reported that they dropped below 5% of CWA points. At that point one additional board member would come from owners in 2020. With 48 billion points that's 2.4 billion points.

Sent from my Lenovo TB-X606F using Tapatalk


----------



## VacayKat

raygo123 said:


> Wyndham reported that they dropped below 5% of CWA points. At that point one additional board member would come from owners in 2020. With 48 billion points that's 2.4 billion points.
> 
> Sent from my Lenovo TB-X606F using Tapatalk


That means my math is off- Sunday brain!!, and the points are higher in the beginning of the year than at the end- average would still be good. So 7.3 billion average over the year but front loaded. That means they offloaded a lot - or numbers in financials are misleading.


----------



## raygo123

VacayKat said:


> That means my math is off- Sunday brain!!, and the points are higher in the beginning of the year than at the end- average would still be good. So 7.3 billion average over the year but front loaded. That means they offloaded a lot - or numbers in financials are misleading.


If a renter only books in the 60 day window that potentially doubles the points owned. Then there is a possibility that half of those, some can be used a third. That's an extreme but possible. Too many variables.

Sent from my Lenovo TB-X606F using Tapatalk


----------



## Eric B

raygo123 said:


> If a renter only books in the 60 day window that potentially doubles the points owned. Then there is a possibility that half of those, some can be used a third. That's an extreme but possible. Too many variables.
> 
> Sent from my Lenovo TB-X606F using Tapatalk



IMHO, if an owner books a stay in the VIP discount window and rents that stay out, it's beneficial to the system as a whole.  The average for owners booking their stays overall is 126 days per Michael Brown's discussion in the Q2 earnings call - that average included folks that book in the 60-day discount window, so may have been skewed low.  The reason the units available in that window are not booked by other owners is very likely because they don't want them or don't own sufficient points to book them - in either case they would go unused or be repurposed by the developer for their own rentals through Extra Holidays or deposits in exchange systems like RCI (less likely because of the timeframe, but possible through the Last Calls, etc.).  If an owner books and rents it, Wyndham gets additional folks to try to sell to, the points get used on less desirable inventory, the HOA gets their MF covered, and the owner might make a profit or recoup their MF payment.

I suppose that some might look at this as taking away short-term availability from those owners that do not plan and book their stays prior to the 60-day point.  There may be some of that, but it's clearly not the highly desirable stays that get rented this way.  In any case, the available information suggests that most owners are booking before that point and speculative rental bookings inside the 60 days might also result in higher availability at the 15-day point from cancelations.


----------



## 55plus

VacayKat said:


> I think that you might be over estimating how many folks agree with you. I do not even see a majority of people in this conversation in agreement with your argument. I get that you feel this way and you have a right to your feelings, but when the situation doesn’t change when Wyndham cracks down on the very small portion of owners ’megarenting’, who will your next target be? It *should* be Wyndham, and I hope you come to see that. I guess what keeps me sane in these devolving discussions is that wyndham owners on the forums are a very small portion of all owners and very few (probably none) either think about screwing other owners over or are actively angry at owners for poor availability.
> Also - your using school girls pejoratively is an offense to girls and women and I’d appreciate your using more appropriate language.


The very small portion of owner mega renters you refer to control hundreds of millions of points for the pure purpose of commerce. When this small portion of owners target certain resorts and timeframes, they wipeout availability for other owners who have a desire to vacation at certain locations with family.


----------



## HitchHiker71

am1 said:


> But everyone had the same opportunity to book.  I took over Skyline Towers for New Years before.  I think over 100 rooms.  I would book the 4 bedroom presidential and I think it was 4 3 bedroom presidentials every weekend when no one used their 13 or 11 month ARP.  Even prime weeks I would book 3 nights then when allowed cancel and book just Fri - Sun.  I would book a lot of Bonnet Creek all 4 bedroom presidentials I could get a hold of.  When PR would release their units to the masses I would scramble to free up points and book everything I could.  Thankfully would not have to hold it for 10 months as I would with normal inventory.  When Tower 6 was being renovated I recall Wyndham must had decided they would finish early and released the whole Tower starting Thanksgiving week.  I remember booking everything I could.  Quite possibly my highlight of the business.
> 
> But lets remember everyone had an equal chance at it.  I do not see any other way to make it equitable.  Equal opportunity not equal outcome.
> 
> I have suggested before that Wyndham should have an extreme prime week at resorts.  New Years, Christmas, Thanksgiving, Bike week, race week, easter, July 4, Mardi Gras.   Another option is to go back to more of a fixed week model where one can purchase prime weeks at a premium but at so many months if not reserved it is released to everyone  and the owner can use points to book where they want.  But Wyndham seems to have gone the other way with CWA.  I guess its easier to tell every owner they can book Bike Week instead of only being able to sell it to one person.



I've often seen this example used - that everyone has the same equal opportunity.  But the problem with this example is that it lacks the context of _intent.  _As everyone knows - _intent _matters - it matters legally (established motive) and it matters when using the reservation system.  Your _intent _was to run a commercial business - and that is a very _different _intent than someone booking strictly for personal use.  The system was _never _designed with the _intent _of running commercial enterprises.  The system was designed with the intent of scheduling personal vacations.  Now, there are those that will then say - hey - everyone booking personal reservations also has the same equal opportunity - but _most _of those folks saying this - are VIP owners with unlimited HK/RTs - whereas the majority of actual owners - are _not _VIP and therefore don't have the luxury of being able to reserve and cancel constantly without having to bear RT costs repeatedly.  So it's easy to say - hey - book everything 10-13 months in advance - on the off chance that you could actually use it - but that's easier to say when there's no additional out of pocket costs involved every time yes?  

Finally, let's examine that equal opportunity vs equal outcome assumption.  Since _intent _matters - and the system was and still is being used for too entirely different use cases - then we cannot simply ignore intent - which is what some seem to want to do here.  Since there's a very small but significant subset of owners - called megarenters - that are working with an entirely different _intent (motive) _than what the system was intended to facilitate - the idea of equal opportunity not equal outcome doesn't apply.  Why?  Because the equal opportunity in this case is the ability to book a vacation reservation for a personal use.  This isn't something anyone can argue against based upon this simple logic analysis that I already shared in another megarenter thread:

All CWP reservations made for commercial rental purposes violate Wyndham Commercial Use Terms & Conditions
Commercial renters made tens of thousands of reservations consisting of hundreds of millions of points for commercial rental purposes
Therefore commercial renters violated Wyndham Commercial Use Terms & Conditions

True or False?

*True (based on documented Wyndham T&Cs)*

With the above listed analysis foremost in mind, and using the undeniable _fact _of this truth - then we can invalidate the argument of equal opportunity given the opportunity is to book personal vacations - and _none _of the opportunities for megarenters or anyone else running a commercial business - are booking personal vacations for personal use.  It really is that simple folks.  It may not be what some want to hear - and inevitably they will likely disagree - but it will be difficult to establish any valid premise when we look at things from the above listed factual perspective.  If anyone doubts this perspective - simply look at the response from Wyndham embedded in the article:



> “Ms. Klebba’s actions are an apparent attempt to *operate a commercial rental business in violation of clearly disclosed rules prohibiting such conduct*,” an unnamed spokesman for Wyndham said in a statement. “We believe her claims are without merit and we will continue to protect our timeshare owners from those who would seek to profit at their expense.”


----------



## rickandcindy23

The self-employment tax rate is *15.3%*. The rate consists of two parts: 12.4% for social security (old-age, survivors, and disability insurance) and 2.9% for Medicare (hospital insurance).

Social Security is financed through a dedicated payroll tax. Employers and employees each pay *6.2 percent* of wages up to the taxable maximum of $142,800 (in 2021), while the self-employed pay 12.4 percent.

Why are people saying that it's only slightly more?  Self employment is expensive.  Being an employer is also expensive.


----------



## Eric B

HitchHiker71 said:


> All CWP reservations made for commercial rental purposes violate Wyndham Commercial Use Terms & Conditions



At the risk of sounding like a broken record, can you cite the Wyndham Commercial Use Terms & Conditions that these violate?  All I've been able to find is the milk toast statement on page 254 of the directory that "The Program is for a Member’s own personal use and enjoyment and not for any commercial purposes."  I don't disagree with the sentiment that commercial rental of CWP timeshares is not the reason why CWP exists; in fact I completely agree with that sentiment.  I'm having trouble with agreeing that there is a clearcut violation of the applicable Terms & Conditions, or more accurately the "Club Wyndham(r) Plus Program Guidelines" that Wyndham provides for us to follow.


----------



## dgalati

“Ms. Klebba’s actions are an apparent attempt to *operate a commercial rental business in violation of clearly disclosed rules prohibiting such conduct*,” an unnamed spokesman for Wyndham said in a statement. “We believe her claims are without merit and we will continue to protect our* EH *timeshare *Rentals* from those who would seek to profit at *Wyndham's* expense.”


----------



## Eric B

rickandcindy23 said:


> The self-employment tax rate is *15.3%*. The rate consists of two parts: 12.4% for social security (old-age, survivors, and disability insurance) and 2.9% for Medicare (hospital insurance).
> 
> Social Security is financed through a dedicated payroll tax. Employers and employees each pay *6.2 percent* of wages up to the taxable maximum of $142,800 (in 2021), while the self-employed pay 12.4 percent.
> 
> Why are people saying that it's only slightly more?  Self employment is expensive.  Being an employer is also expensive.



It all depends on context.  For someone that is employed full time and makes more than $142,800 per year, the SE tax payable for renting timeshares as a second source of income would only be 2.9% of the net earnings from the rentals because their payment of the 6.2% on the wages earned at their full time job coupled with the employer's share would cover the OASDI (Social Security) portion of SE taxes.  The 2.9% on net earnings seems on the order of only slightly more to me; on the other hand, 15.3% on net is a lot.


----------



## rickandcindy23

dgalati said:


> “Ms. Klebba’s actions are an apparent attempt to *operate a commercial rental business in violation of clearly disclosed rules prohibiting such conduct*,” an unnamed spokesman for Wyndham said in a statement. “We believe her claims are without merit and we will continue to protect our* EH *timeshare *Rentals* from those who would seek to profit at *Wyndham's* expense.”


So Wyndham is protecting its Extra Holidays website by stopping megarenters?  That sounds blatantly like corporate greed to me.  You can disagree with me all you want, but if your new competition is Wyndham, you will lose.  They have the power to book whatever, whenever they want.  You exchange several bad-guy renters for a corporation that wants to take all of that income for itself.  Sounds purely wicked.


----------



## rickandcindy23

Eric B said:


> It all depends on context.  For someone that is employed full time and makes more than $142,800 per year, the SE tax payable for renting timeshares as a second source of income would only be 2.9% of the net earnings from the rentals because their payment of the 6.2% on the wages earned at their full time job coupled with the employer's share would cover the OASDI (Social Security) portion of SE taxes.  The 2.9% on net earnings seems on the order of only slightly more to me; on the other hand, 15.3% on net is a lot.


I paid a lot for our timeshare rental business in SE tax.  Turbo Tax makes me pay that 15.3% on my net profit.  That is how it's computed.


----------



## Eric B

rickandcindy23 said:


> I paid a lot for our timeshare rental business in SE tax.  Turbo Tax makes me pay that 15.3% on my net profit.  That is how it's computed.



I'm not surprised; my understanding is that you are not working full time for another employer.  On the other hand, I am employed full time, so for me the SE tax is only 2.9% because my employer and I each pay the OASDI portion through the ceiling ($142,800 - my employer actually continues to pay above that because there isn't a ceiling for the employer's portion, unlike the circumstances for self-employed people).  That's why I said it depends on the context - I only pay 2.9% on my net earnings from the minuscule amount of renting I do, while someone else might pay 15.3%.  (That's in addition to the income taxes for Federal and State).


----------



## HitchHiker71

VacayKat said:


> Ok, so help me out here. This person was sold the points and paid the MF yearly. They were not in arrears. How does Wyndham have to protect other owners from these folk who were ‘profiting at their expense’? And exactly how does someone renting out their legitimately gotten points hurt me, another owner who also has legitimate points. I honestly just do not grasp how someone renting their points harms me. If points are only sold that track to actual availability to rent, then it does not matter whether the owner or a guest uses the reservation, it’s legitimate.
> Please do not start a thread attacking me - help me actually understand in factual terms and examples how a renter hurts other owners. (As in, don’t say it is a fact unless you cite the evidence)



Because those owners expressly violated the Wyndham Terms & Conditions for using the entire system.  Whenever anyone utilizes a system in a way other than intended - it produces harm to everyone else using that same system for legitimate purposes.  Per the post I just put out - we cannot ignore _intent_.  And since megarenters had very different _intent _when using the system - per @am1's own examples - he would utilize his millions (more?) of points to book up the largest rooms in the resorts right at 13 months - and then utilize a process to then start consuming additional inventory from there.  What normal owner would ever do anything like this?  Granted - this was prior to the 2016 changes - but that's not really relevant.  It _does _matter whether the owner or a _renter _uses the reservation.  As many have indicated - and we see this all of the time on the FB forums - if an owner is trying to find a week available for vacation - and cannot see any availability - but can see availability out on third party rental sites such as eBay, Tripadvisor, Redweek, Expedia, etc., that creates a real problem for both Wyndham and for us as owners.  Realistically - since the _intent _is very different for a commercial business owner when compared to a normal owner - specific to how does this impact _you - _this is proven by the second set of factual observations I also made in the other thread:

Every rental reservation booked for a non-Wyndham _renter_ removes that exact amount of available inventory for an actual Wyndham vacation _owner_
Commercial renters made hundreds of millions of points rental reservations (at least)
Therefore commercial renters removed hundreds of millions of points of inventory availability for _renters_ that was made inaccessible to Wyndham vacation _owners_

True or False?

*True (IMHO)* 

Since we know that _intent _matters - and we know from actual admission right here on this same thread - at least _some _megarenters book up the largest rooms available as far in advance as is possible.  By admission - they said (paraphrasing):  I have no idea who will use this inventory so far in advance - but I know it's going to be consumed by someone.  This shows a very different _intent _than a normal owner booking for personal use.  The megarenter does _not _have to know any approximation of when the inventory will be rented.  Whereas an owner at least has to have an approximation of when they can actually take a vacation - and where.  It's two very different use cases - two very different forms of _intent_.  So with that in mind - along with the above listed logic statement - inventory is being removed from the system - that is no longer accessible to _you _or to any other owner looking to book a personal vacation.  This means that inventory is being removed from the system by a megarenter with very different _intent _than any normal owner.  When the system is used in any way other than _intended - _this harms everyone using the system - including _you.  _How?  Since we know that the average owner books 126 days in advance - for a planner like _you _- this will mean that _all _of the megarenter inventory will become available - and at least a subset of that inventory will become available to normal owners - like _you - _for personal use.  Is that a guarantee you will find more available inventory?  No it is not - but it's more likely than before.  As Ron is so fond of saying - it's points chasing reservations.  But since intent matters - and megarenters have a very different intent than normal owners - their methods of using the system will be eliminated - and there will likely be more availability - at any one point in time - for normal owners - especially for planners - than before.


----------



## CO skier

Eric B said:


> The reason the units available in that window are not booked by other owners is very likely because they don't want them or don't own sufficient points to book them - in either case they would go unused or be repurposed by the developer for their own rentals through Extra Holidays or deposits in exchange systems like RCI (less likely because of the timeframe, but possible through the Last Calls, etc.).





Eric B said:


> I suppose that some might look at this as taking away short-term availability from those owners that do not plan and book their stays prior to the 60-day point.  There may be some of that, but it's clearly not the highly desirable stays that get rented this way.


Take a look at all the 60-day rentals on Ebay for places like Bonnet Creek and Glacier Canyon.  Do you really think other owners "don't want them" for their getaway vacations?  The megarenters use a lot of resale points with the 50% discount to book these cancellations within the 60-day window.  After the changes in mid-August, many of these will not be adequately profitable without the 50% discount, and owners will book these desirable reservations at full points costs to enjoy the vacation they paid for with their initial purchase and ongoing maintenance fees.




Eric B said:


> If an owner books and rents it, Wyndham gets additional folks to try to sell to,


There have been a number of posts about how it is easier to sell to an existing owner (upgrade) than non-owners.



Eric B said:


> the HOA gets their MF covered


The HOAs do not get a dime of these rentals.  The maintenance fees are paid whether or not someone stays in a unit.  Someone will be paying the maintenance fees on those 1M+ contracts selling on Ebay as a result of resale points no longer qualifying for VIP discounts.



Eric B said:


> and the owner might make a profit or recoup their MF payment.


There will be less profiteering on desirable cancellations within 60-days.  The no-longer-profitable but desirable dates at places like Bonnet Creek and Glacier Canyon will remain available from the cancellation date to day 0 for owners to book at full points cost.  (More availability for owners, which is a positive development from the owners' point of view.)


----------



## dgalati

rickandcindy23 said:


> So Wyndham is protecting its Extra Holidays website by stopping megarenters?  That sounds blatantly like corporate greed to me.  You can disagree with me all you want, but if your new competition is Wyndham, you will lose.  They have the power to book whatever, whenever they want.  You exchange several bad-guy renters for a corporation that wants to take all of that income for itself.  Sounds purely wicked.


It was satire only!
“Ms. Klebba’s actions are an apparent attempt to *operate a commercial rental business in violation of clearly disclosed rules prohibiting such conduct*,” an unnamed spokesman for Wyndham said in a statement. “We believe her claims are without merit and we will continue to protect our timeshare owners from those who would seek to profit at their expense.”


----------



## SmithOp

rickandcindy23 said:


> The self-employment tax rate is *15.3%*. The rate consists of two parts: 12.4% for social security (old-age, survivors, and disability insurance) and 2.9% for Medicare (hospital insurance).
> 
> Social Security is financed through a dedicated payroll tax. Employers and employees each pay *6.2 percent* of wages up to the taxable maximum of $142,800 (in 2021), while the self-employed pay 12.4 percent.
> 
> Why are people saying that it's only slightly more? Self employment is expensive. Being an employer is also expensive.



If I earn $100k from an employer as W-2 wages, 1/2 of the SE tax is deducted from my paycheck every week. I don’t pay income tax on the 1/2 amount the employer pays for me.

If I earn $100k as an independent contractor I pay the full SE tax myself, BUT I get an AGI adjustment for 1/2 the amount, so I still don’t pay income tax on it.

Independent or not, everyone pays the employment taxes that fund SS and Medicare, so its not like independent workers are unfairly taxed, everyone is paying it one way or another.

The information on the SE tax form is sent on to SS every year so that people get credit for those wages toward their SS, and they get the SE tax money back with interest when they file SS - its a forced retirement benefit.

I have to explain this every year to independent contractors when I do their taxes. Its been a lot of people since companies like Lyft and Uber started.


----------



## VacayKat

HitchHiker71 said:


> As many have indicated - and we see this all of the time on the FB forums - if an owner is trying to find a week available for vacation - and cannot see any availability - but can see availability out on third party rental sites such as eBay, Tripadvisor, Redweek, Expedia, etc., that creates a real problem for both Wyndham and for us as owners.  Realistically - since the _intent _is very different for a commercial business owner when compared to a normal owner - specific to how does this impact _you - _this is proven by the second set of factual observations I also made in the other thread:


Alright, suppose I agree to your premise, if I, an owner, have points available to me, and I can not find any availability at the resort that I want to book at during a certain time frame, but find gobs and gobs of availability at Extra Holidays and end up shelling out loads of money per night to rent the resort, is that not the same problem? [because I've had this exact problem, and paid about $1000 for a 2-3 night rental when all the fees and add-ons were calculated. It has been a while so I don't have the receipt handy]

Does Wyndham not have the same obligation to ensure that it is not taking inventory that an owner might want to reserve? Or is it just owners who are prohibited from doing such things?

I guess what I'm not understanding is how megarenters differ from Wyndham and how little folks renting out a stay here and there to manage the ever increasing MF hurt me by their *intent*. And if that is the problem, then every time Wyndham let their sales people tell folks to make a sale that they could rent out points to cover their MF then we have an even bigger problem because Wyndham created the problem. 

Do not get me wrong - I am not suggesting that someone should use a timeshare for a business. That sounds like the most painful way to make a living. _I am just trying to figure out_ how these folks, who most likely are not as big as everyone thinks they are, are impacting my vacation when the only time I've ever had trouble finding a place to reserve is when I can find the inventory on Extra Holidays, a resort appears to be closed [no inventory at all for months on end] or during the craze earlier this year as folks tried to use up all their covid canceled vacation points. Quite literally, there is no way I would have even thought it a thing before finding these forums where megarenters are the scapegoat. So let me ask this, is the way that they are hurting me this: _they are hurting the brand....?_


----------



## Eric B

CO skier said:


> Take a look at all the 60-day rentals on Ebay for places like Bonnet Creek and Glacier Canyon.  Do you really think other owners "don't want them" for their getaway vacations?  The megarenters use a lot of resale points with the 50% discount to book these cancellations within the 60-day window.  After the changes in mid-August, many of these will not be adequately profitable without the 50% discount, and owners will book these desirable reservations for the vacation they paid for with their initial purchase and ongoing maintenance fees.
> 
> 
> 
> There have been a number of posts about how it is easier to sell to an existing owner (upgrade) than non-owners.
> 
> 
> The HOAs do not get a dime of these rentals.  The maintenance fees are paid whether or not someone stays in a unit.  Someone will be paying the maintenance fees on those 1M+ contracts selling on Ebay as a result of resale points no longer qualifying for VIP discounts.
> 
> 
> There will be less profiteering on desirable cancellations within 60-days.  The no-longer-profitable but desirable dates at places like Bonnet Creek and Glacier Canyon will remain available from the cancellation date to day 0 for owners to book at full points cost.  (More availability for owners, which is a positive development from the owners' point of view.)



Thank you for your feedback.  Reasonable minds can disagree, of course.  We'll see what the net result winds up being after the latest updates are done.  IMHO, Wyndham has the power to set up the program guidelines in a way that greatly reduces the use of the system by the megarenters as well as the information necessary to identify who they are if they so choose.  For some reason, they've made the business decision that it isn't in their best interest to do that.  I'll be interested in seeing what happens to systemwide availability once things are are implemented and the perturbations settle down.  I have no illusions that this will cure the issues people have with being able to reserve high demand times on short notice.


----------



## dgalati

HitchHiker71 said:


> Every rental reservation booked for a non-Wyndham _renter_ removes that exact amount of available inventory for an actual Wyndham vacation _owner_
> Commercial renters made hundreds of millions of points rental reservations (at least)
> Therefore commercial renters removed hundreds of millions of points of inventory availability for _renters_ that was made inaccessible to Wyndham vacation _owners_



 Double the number of available rooms it took out of the system if the rentals were using 50% VIP discount in the 60 day discount window


----------



## VacayKat

55plus said:


> The very small portion of owner mega renters you refer to control hundreds of millions of points for the pure purpose of commerce. When this small portion of owners target certain resorts and timeframes, they wipeout availability for other owners who have a desire to vacation at certain locations with family.


I guess the point I'm trying to make is that Wyndham is wiping out these megarenters. Therefore, when the availability continues to be difficult to get my hope is that you turn your frustration towards Wyndham where it belongs for setting up a system which allowed things to occur (and creates inherent competition for highly desired weeks/locations due to a points based system rather than a weeks based system) and promoting rentals.
I hope I'm wrong and you are suddenly able to make all the *reservations* you want in the future, but I really just think that there aren't enough rooms to go around for the locations and times when all owners want them.

*edited to correct brainfart in bold above.*


----------



## HitchHiker71

buckor said:


> Where i would disagree with things is if one set of owners had to abide by one set of rules while another set had to abide by a different set of rules. A local businessman, who sits on the town council, wants to change the rules for renting homes in the area so that people have to rent for 30 days or longer, unless you stay in a hotel or hotel property. Well, he owns the 5 Star hotel in town and all its other properties. He would be able to rent his houses short-term because they technically are part of a hotel property. That I don’t agree with.
> 
> Wyndham has a system. It is up to them to enforce that system without disenfranchising owners who bought into Wyndham expecting to use their system for personal use but now cannot due to a handful of people that Wyndham cannot seem to “control.”
> 
> So, am I FOR mega renters? Not directly. I am for Wyndham owners using the system as Wyndham had designed. Am I against mega renters? Not directly. Shouldn’t any owner who wants be able to rent points they aren’t going to be able to personally use? I realize there are technicalities and intricacies I am glossing over. My point, however, is that if someone buys a product they should be able to use that product as designed…in our case, reserving rooms at resorts with points purchased, whether retail (with “club benefits”) or resale (without those benefits).
> 
> Blessings!



Exactly - in other words _intent _matters yes? In the case of anyone running a commercial enterprise - this use case clearly violates documented Wyndham commercial use clauses. Did Wyndham turn a potentially blind eye to this for a long time? Looks that way to me. Has Wyndham changed their tune over the past five years or so? Yep - starting in 2016 when the most egregious megarenters were forced out (though most of them settled out of court prior to actually being forced out). I have empathy for anyone who has built a business that became their lifeblood and that business (and source of income) is now being targeted. That's never an easy place to be. As I said on another post - the company I worked for was acquired last year and my career was thrown for a serious loop and, being the primary breadwinner in my household, we were put way out of our comfort zone. For those that are now in this bucket - I feel for you. That said, the writing has been on the wall for years now given what occurred in 2016, and again now in 2021 with even greater intent on Wyndham's part with the recent letters that have gone out to those who rent frequently. I dearly hope that everyone that falls into this small bucket saw the writing on the wall - and has planned accordingly. If not, please do so - as the time of the megarenter is quickly coming to a close IMHO.


----------



## Eric B

VacayKat said:


> I hope I'm wrong and you are suddenly able to make all the *rentals** reservations *you want in the future, but I really just think that there aren't enough rooms to go around for the locations and times when all owners want them.



Think you mean this....


----------



## paxsarah

VacayKat said:


> Alright, suppose I agree to your premise, if I, an owner, have points available to me, and I can not find any availability at the resort that I want to book at during a certain time frame, but find gobs and gobs of availability at Extra Holidays and end up shelling out loads of money per night to rent the resort, is that not the same problem?


I asked essentially this same question on one of the other threads a few days ago. FB users are big mad when they can't find availability with their own points, but they can find it for rent for cash on eBay or Travelocity or wherever. What happens, _perception-wise_, when EH (and whatever other outlets Wyndham may use to rent out inventory) becomes the main source for rentals of Wyndham resorts? Even if real availability is opened up for actual owners through all these changes, for the owner who doesn't manage to book it, are they still mad but now it's just more likely they're mad at EH?


----------



## VacayKat

Eric B said:


> Think you mean this....


hahah, oh man... yep, it's true. Guess my fingers and my brain were moving at two different speeds.


----------



## dgalati

CO skier said:


> Take a look at all the 60-day rentals on Ebay for places like Bonnet Creek and Glacier Canyon.  Do you really think other owners "don't want them" for their getaway vacations?  The megarenters use a lot of resale points with the 50% discount to book these cancellations within the 60-day window.  After the changes in mid-August, many of these will not be adequately profitable without the 50% discount, and owners will book these desirable reservations at full points costs to enjoy the vacation they paid for with their initial purchase and ongoing maintenance fees.
> There will be less profiteering on desirable cancellations within 60-days.  The no-longer-profitable but desirable dates at places like Bonnet Creek and Glacier Canyon will remain available from the cancellation date to day 0 for owners to book at full points cost.  (More availability for owners, which is a positive development from the owners' point of view.)


Mega renters profited at all owners expense. Fortunately someone at Wyndham realized just how much it was costing Wyndham or owners would be still taking it on the chin. Don't be delusional and believe this was done exclusively for owners benefit. Clear example - Ovations and Certified exit they do help owners but ultimately who profits the most from the exit programs?


----------



## HitchHiker71

troy12n said:


> I guess the big question is, why don't they just do a big 2016 style account suspension on all the mega renters, cancel their reservations, and let the rest sort itself out. They obviously have the analytics to know who these people are and who to selectively target. It should be easy enough to see who has BC/GC/OW/NOLA "booked out" on certain dates.
> 
> I think it's been made pretty obvious there are not a huge number of these people running the table with million of points.



The Wyndham of old would have done exactly that.  The current Wyndham ELT obviously wants to give the megarenters the opportunity to make a graceful exit prior to taking more punitive steps.  For anyone who received a the letter in scope, you have been forewarned.  The next steps taken IMHO will likely be similar to those taken in 2016 if Wyndham does not see cessation of the violation of commercial use clauses.


----------



## VacayKat

paxsarah said:


> I asked essentially this same question on one of the other threads a few days ago. FB users are big mad when they can't find availability with their own points, but they can find it for rent for cash on eBay or Travelocity or wherever. What happens, _perception-wise_, when EH (and whatever other outlets Wyndham may use to rent out inventory) becomes the main source for rentals of Wyndham resorts? Even if real availability is opened up for actual owners through all these changes, for the owner who doesn't manage to book it, are they still mad but now it's just more likely they're mad at EH?


Just looked - and for the dates at Christmas in my desired location there is availability on EH that I couldn't book which would have given me better accommodations. Also, as I've mentioned before Travelocity is one of the outlets that Wyndham uses for its inventory, it isn't an owner renting there. There are a couple on Redweek but as it's a partially owned Wyndham property, pretty sure those are folks who own weeks (as they already have units assigned). Essentially, I am competing with Wyndham, or owners who give inventory to EH (probably very low as the rate of return is next to nil).


----------



## CO skier

Eric B said:


> I have no illusions that this will cure the issues people have with being able to reserve high demand times on short notice.


I agree and do not think the changes in 2017 and now are intended as a cure to all ills in Club Wyndham.  The March and June and mid-August changes appear to be a compromise.  There will certainly be rentals made and offered using the 2 Guest Certificate exemptions for the restricted dates at the highly desirable and profitable resorts and dates.

There have been posts from VIPs that they will book their >60-day reservations using resale points to save the developer points for VIP discounts in the 60-day booking window.  Some owners may take the same approach and rent out on Ebay or elsewhere what they book within 60 days.

Wyndham will likely run reports comparing guest usage prior to and after these latest changes to judge the effectiveness.  The 1M+ points contracts appearing on Ebay clearly suggest there will be less resale points used within the 60-day window, and that will lead to more owner availability, but I do not know how anyone not privy to Wyndham's reports could determine how effective the changes were.


----------



## HitchHiker71

rapmarks said:


> That is why I specifically mentioned Glacier Canyon,which is ten minutes away. this is a property which has very little undesirable time.  Add someone to the deed, pay them $50 to check in and meet your renter, no gc required



I believe this is also a violation of Wyndham usage terms and conditions - I'll dig up the verbiage and post it - but this is no different than violating the commercial use clauses in essence.


----------



## HitchHiker71

Mongoose said:


> So what is actually happening to the points contracts and MR investment?



MRs received a cease and desist letter shortly after the updated GC policy was announced.  If the offending reservations are not proactively cancelled by the owner(s), Wyndham will cancel the reservations.  I suspect if Wyndham doesn't see cessation of the offending behavior - the accounts in scope will be subject to auditing/suspension - akin to what occurred in 2016.  The only difference is - the offending accounts received warning letters this time around.


----------



## HitchHiker71

CO skier said:


> I agree and do not think the changes in 2017 and now are intended as a cure to all ills in Club Wyndham.  The March and June and mid-August changes appear to be a compromise.  There will certainly be rentals made and offered using the 2 Guest Certificate exemptions for the restricted dates at the highly desirable and profitable resorts and dates.
> 
> There have been posts from VIPs that they will book their >60-day reservations using resale points to save the developer points for VIP discounts in the 60-day booking window.  Some owners may take the same approach and rent out on Ebay or elsewhere what they book within 60 days.
> 
> Wyndham will likely run reports comparing guest usage prior to and after these latest changes to judge the effectiveness.  The 1M+ points contracts appearing on Ebay clearly suggest there will be less resale points used within the 60-day window, and that will lead to more owner availability, but I do not know how anyone not privy to Wyndham's reports could determine how effective the changes were.



If you look at the GC restrictions through a certain lense - and with respect to renting - we can all see easily that it is the higher demand/higher occupancy rate resorts that have blackout periods for GC usage.  Wyndham is _not _applying blackout periods to many of the older resorts that aren't as popular and are lower on the points charts. Wyndham wants third party renters to target this subset of resorts to help raise occupancy rates - whereas Wyndham doesn't need help raising occupancy rates at the resorts in scope for the blackout periods - in fact they likely have the opposite problem - owners complaining about a lack of availability - with GC occupancy rates beyond tolerance levels - hence the changes in scope.


----------



## HitchHiker71

Cyrus24 said:


> Not angry, just pointing out that you are a commercial renter.  As for me, I'm no more of a commercial renter than you are.  A few GC's per year to friends and family.  Compensation comes in many forms.



If you received a cease and desist letter from Wyndham for commercial use activity - you're being identified as someone who is violating the terms of commercial use clauses.  Wyndham has already defined what is or is not a commercial renter - no need for anyone on this  thread to attempt to do so as a result.


----------



## Eric B

HitchHiker71 said:


> If you received a cease and desist letter from Wyndham for commercial use activity - you're being identified as someone who is violating the terms of commercial use clauses.  Wyndham has already defined what is or is not a commercial renter - no need for anyone on this  thread to attempt to do so as a result.



Have they done so publicly in explicit terms that would put people on notice of where the line is before they get such a letter?

Edited to add: it's possible that they haven't done so because they can use the help on occupancy levels in the non-high demand resorts...


----------



## richardm

Trying to figure out what you think an "actual" Wyndham owner is.... Guess someone who owns points and pays maintenance fees isn't qualified in your warped point of view.  Keep drinking the cool aide..


----------



## rapmarks

HitchHiker71 said:


> I believe this is also a violation of Wyndham usage terms and conditions - I'll dig up the verbiage and post it - but this is no different than violating the commercial use clauses in essence.


It should be, no argument from me


----------



## 55plus

Someone didn't get the memo: CHRISTMAS IN ORLANDO! - vacation rentals (craigslist.org)


----------



## HitchHiker71

VacayKat said:


> I think that you might be over estimating how many folks agree with you. I do not even see a majority of people in this conversation in agreement with your argument. I get that you feel this way and you have a right to your feelings, but when the situation doesn’t change when Wyndham cracks down on the very small portion of owners ’megarenting’, who will your next target be? It *should* be Wyndham, and I hope you come to see that. I guess what keeps me sane in these devolving discussions is that wyndham owners on the forums are a very small portion of all owners and very few (probably none) either think about screwing other owners over or are actively angry at owners for poor availability.
> Also - your using school girls pejoratively is an offense to girls and women and I’d appreciate your using more appropriate language.



I think you're underestimating the number of folks that agree with TUG in so far as the majority of the owner base is concerned.  TUG is the exception not the rule.  I'm an admin/moderator on a good number of the FB forums - and from what we moderate out on the FB forums - the _vast_ majority of FB group members have no love for MRs - and there are a LOT of owners that fall into this bucket on the FB forums - far more than are apologists for the MRs.  It is true that the "new crew" here on TUG may be in the minority - but as I've said previously - the new will supercede the old - that's just the way it goes in this life.  So while the "new crew" here on TUG might be in the minority today - we are the future - the "old crew" represents the past - and the past is going away - on that I think we're all seeing this play out right before our eyes - and Wyndham is at the helm - and there's nothing anyone here can do to stop it.  For my part - I work with Wyndham every week - and based upon my considerable amount of experience here on TUG - I'm one of the _only _people that actually works with Wyndham. I don't buy into the "us vs them" mantra that underlies much of the sentiment expressed by the "old crew" here ont TUG - I buy into the "let's work together" to make our collective ownership experiences better with Wyndham - because that's what I believe in doing to make things better. That said - I'm not angry over anything - but I do disagree with the premises of most of the arguments made by the MRs with respect to their beliefs - and I have been and will continue to be vocal about why that it is when appropriate.


----------



## HitchHiker71

Herbaltees said:


> I read through this whole thread and that other  18 page one, and I cannot understand why some people are hating on the mega-renter as if Wyndham is a poor disenfranchised mom and pop store owner.
> 
> My take is that Wyndham took serious notice of the money rentals were making in the secondary market and wants to monopolize piece of the pie.  Like someone said in the other thread Wyndham wants to be the only mega renter in the game through their EH site.
> 
> I also don't understand how getting rid of the mega renter increases availability?  I'm a  newbie resale owner, so help me understand.  If one owner with 67M points is forced to liquidate his/ her portfolio doesn't that mean there are now potentially 67 new owners with 1M points still trying to get La Belle Masion for mardi gras?  I see it getting worse not better, or am I missing something?



We've already proven this oft used theory is incorrect - a TUG Wyndham owner even ran a test by submitting a blackout period rentral to EH recently for January timeframe just to see if EH would accept a reservation that overlapped into a blackout period.  The reservation was turned away by EH - for exactly this reason.  Feel free to run the same test yourself - you'll get the same result.  Wyndham is currently honoring the same blackout periods on EH for owner reservations.


----------



## am1

HitchHiker71 said:


> I've often seen this example used - that everyone has the same equal opportunity.  But the problem with this example is that it lacks the context of _intent.  _As everyone knows - _intent _matters - it matters legally (established motive) and it matters when using the reservation system.  Your _intent _was to run a commercial business - and that is a very _different _intent than someone booking strictly for personal use.  The system was _never _designed with the _intent _of running commercial enterprises.  The system was designed with the intent of scheduling personal vacations.  Now, there are those that will then say - hey - everyone booking personal reservations also has the same equal opportunity - but _most _of those folks saying this - are VIP owners with unlimited HK/RTs - whereas the majority of actual owners - are _not _VIP and therefore don't have the luxury of being able to reserve and cancel constantly without having to bear RT costs repeatedly.  So it's easy to say - hey - book everything 10-13 months in advance - on the off chance that you could actually use it - but that's easier to say when there's no additional out of pocket costs involved every time yes?
> 
> Finally, let's examine that equal opportunity vs equal outcome assumption.  Since _intent _matters - and the system was and still is being used for too entirely different use cases - then we cannot simply ignore intent - which is what some seem to want to do here.  Since there's a very small but significant subset of owners - called megarenters - that are working with an entirely different _intent (motive) _than what the system was intended to facilitate - the idea of equal opportunity not equal outcome doesn't apply.  Why?  Because the equal opportunity in this case is the ability to book a vacation reservation for a personal use.  This isn't something anyone can argue against based upon this simple logic analysis that I already shared in another megarenter thread:
> 
> All CWP reservations made for commercial rental purposes violate Wyndham Commercial Use Terms & Conditions
> Commercial renters made tens of thousands of reservations consisting of hundreds of millions of points for commercial rental purposes
> Therefore commercial renters violated Wyndham Commercial Use Terms & Conditions
> 
> True or False?
> 
> *True (based on documented Wyndham T&Cs)*
> 
> With the above listed analysis foremost in mind, and using the undeniable _fact _of this truth - then we can invalidate the argument of equal opportunity given the opportunity is to book personal vacations - and _none _of the opportunities for megarenters or anyone else running a commercial business - are booking personal vacations for personal use.  It really is that simple folks.  It may not be what some want to hear - and inevitably they will likely disagree - but it will be difficult to establish any valid premise when we look at things from the above listed factual perspective.  If anyone doubts this perspective - simply look at the response from Wyndham embedded in the article:



First tell that to the sales people who got their directions from management. Tell that to the people who never once told me what I was doing was against Wyndham policy before I walked away (drove away in a rental car).  

And then don't hate the player hate the game.  Not much in life is fair.  I made the most of what I could (mostly).  I should have done more and went all in. I left a lot of money on the table for various reasons but that is life.  98% of the time I made sure to be able to be online when bookings could start and well as cancel at the last possible moment at night to be able to rebook in morning.  Then if I was going to walk away from a reservation at 15 days or inside if booking in the morning and cancelling at night I would book the book the middle 2 or 3 nights breaking the week up.  That way 3 people would get reservations or upgrades instead of one upgrading a full week or booking a full week.


----------



## HitchHiker71

Braindead said:


> So what’s the answer? My opinions
> 1. No discounts & or upgrades using GCs.
> 2. Resorts have to help on owners checking in for rentals. An owner doing rentals lives close by a resort & is constantly checking in. There’s only a few employees assigning unit numbers they know who they are.
> 3. Get control of the amount of GCs being used by a few. Raising the cost & less free ones.
> *4. I’m open to a family & friends list.*
> 
> I’m 100% against the current blackout list ruining family & friends group vacations & hope it goes away ASAP. Tomorrow isn’t soon enough for me!!!
> This is the worst thing Wyndham could’ve come up with IMHO!! Wyndham stop punishing practically all owners with the blackout list!!!!!!



I'm fine with the proposed items above.  Richelle and I have explicitly had several conversations and proposals for item 4 above, dependent upon the use cases in scope.  I continue to push this option as a valid part of an overall solution.  I've also seen suggestions to simply stop allowing for purchase of additional GCs.  That's not something I've considered in the past - I need to think about this option more as it relates to any possible F&F program.


----------



## Cyrus24

HitchHiker71 said:


> If you received a cease and desist letter from Wyndham for commercial use activity - you're being identified as someone who is violating the terms of commercial use clauses.  Wyndham has already defined what is or is not a commercial renter - no need for anyone on this  thread to attempt to do so as a result.


I did not receive a cease and desist letter.  But then, I only own 168K in resale.  My point was that by the definition of some on the forum anyone who rents if violating intent and is an evil MR.  Yet, one who does complain loudly has rented via LMR and has also taken compensation for rooms rented for coveted Daytona Bike week.  I'd just like to know where the line is.  It's time Wyndham defined the line!!!  And, since no line exists, it seems that we most likely are all in violation of the rules since we have all either rented for cash or taken some type of compensation for putting friends and family up in room at a Wyndham resort.


----------



## Cyrus24

The Blackout Program seems to be working.  BC has openings every weekend, except one, for the next 60 days.  I have to wonder if we won't see this type of bump in availability after the MR's are gone and the Blackout BS is stopped?  Or will MR's just suck up weekends at full point cost  then just start charging more in rent for the units?  Could a person still not come out ahead renting at a price similar to that being offered on EH by Wyndham?  
Still not sure that availability will improve after the MR point ownership is reduced.


----------



## HitchHiker71

ronparise said:


> I’m not trying to change any minds either, (maybe just open some)
> 
> there are systemic problems with points based timeshare systems that go deeper than just commercial use. The mega renters no doubt caused some problems, but not all of them.
> 
> There are only so many condos in Orlando. not every owners kid is going to get to see Mickey
> 
> there will still be couples like my wife and I that need a two bedroom unit (one of us snores) that ice the families with kids out of the larger units
> 
> But mainly there will still be owners, that feel entitled to what they want when they want it,,, and that’s a problem that getting rid of the mega renters won’t solve



Agree 100% - there's no one solution that will resolve the entire problem - but that's not the intent here - the intent is to implement solutions that provide actual owners access to the inventory in the system - as opposed to tens of thousands of renters consuming that same amount of inventory.  As @paxsarah has said - the planners will likely benefit the most from the solutions being put in place.  The early bird always gets the worm so to speak.  Those who wait until the last minute to try to find inventory during prime season at high occupancy rate resorts are going to continue to have to learn to live with disappointment - even if every single MR is removed from the current system.  As you have said - it's owners chasing reservations with points.


----------



## Eric B

The other thing that bothers me is that it's not just effecting rentals, but also exchange with independent exchange companies.  There are some that Wyndham used to have direct relations with and would confirm reservations for deposits (e.g., Trading Places International).  Despite including that as a perk for purchases in the Outrigger Resort Club, they no longer do the confirmations for those deposits (as reported by someone that attempted last year).  The result is that using an independent exchange company requires a guest certificate to complete the exchange - I get it that Wyndham wants you to use their exchange company, but there are often better exchanges to be had elsewhere.  When I do that, I'm not engaging in that activity for "commercial purposes" or with any other intent besides getting a better bang for my buck than I can get through Wyndham/RCI.

The fundamental problem I see with this whole thing is that Wyndham's go to attempts to curb megarenting activity amount to only the stick and no carrot - if they gave decent value for the money (e.g., at least covering the MF cost for reservations turned over to Extra Holidays) instead of allocating all risk of the transaction to the owners and 60% of the rewards to themselves, they would get more of the rental activity.  Similarly, if they hadn't decided to cut themselves off from the competition in the exchange world, they would be able to get a slice of that.


----------



## HitchHiker71

Cyrus24 said:


> I did not receive a cease and desist letter.  But then, I only own 168K in resale.  My point was that by the definition of some on the forum anyone who rents if violating intent and is an evil MR.  Yet, one who does complain loudly has rented via LMR and has also taken compensation for rooms rented for coveted Daytona Bike week.  I'd just like to know where the line is.  It's time Wyndham defined the line!!!  And, since no line exists, it seems that we most likely are all in violation of the rules since we have all either rented for cash or taken some type of compensation for putting friends and family up in room at a Wyndham resort.



Wyndham will never define the line - no attorney will ever allow them to do so - the wording is intentionally kept as a very high level by design.


----------



## Eric B

HitchHiker71 said:


> Wyndham will never define the line - no attorney will ever allow them to do so - the wording is intentionally kept as a very high level by design.



... and as a result there are no clear and present violations of the Commercial Use Terms and Conditions.  That fact will leave the system design as the only way to try to disincentivize the behaviors that don't benefit them and another crop of folks will spring up to fill the void created by the intentional ambiguity and the current round of changes to get the current megarenters.  If the corporate management really wanted to set things up in a manner that actually addresses the problem, they could do so explicitly.  I'm glad to hear that you've seen the light on this.


----------



## Cyrus24

HitchHiker71 said:


> So while the "new crew" here on TUG might be in the minority today - we are the future - the "old crew" represents the past - and the past is going away -


I really take exception to the old crew/new crew chatter.  What defines Old?  Age, Wyndham ownership time, TUG membership time, attitude, MR/everybody else, Wyndham only owner versus Hybrid/Resale owner?  Perhaps you could define this as I take offense to the terminology since I don't really know where the line is drawn.  I don't need a dissertation, just a quick statement as to the line.


----------



## VacayKat

HitchHiker71 said:


> I think you're underestimating the number of folks that agree with TUG in so far as the majority of the owner base is concerned.  TUG is the exception not the rule.  I'm an admin/moderator on a good number of the FB forums - and from what we moderate out on the FB forums - the _vast_ majority of FB group members have no love for MRs - and there are a LOT of owners that fall into this bucket on the FB forums - far more than are apologists for the MRs.  It is true that the "new crew" here on TUG may be in the minority - but as I've said previously - the new will supercede the old - that's just the way it goes in this life.  So while the "new crew" here on TUG might be in the minority today - we are the future - the "old crew" represents the past - and the past is going away - on that I think we're all seeing this play out right before our eyes - and Wyndham is at the helm - and there's nothing anyone here can do to stop it.  For my part - I work with Wyndham every week - and based upon my considerable amount of experience here on TUG - I'm one of the _only _people that actually works with Wyndham. I don't buy into the "us vs them" mantra that underlies much of the sentiment expressed by the "old crew" here ont TUG - I buy into the "let's work together" to make our collective ownership experiences better with Wyndham - because that's what I believe in doing to make things better. That said - I'm not angry over anything - but I do disagree with the premises of most of the arguments made by the MRs with respect to their beliefs - and I have been and will continue to be vocal about why that it is when appropriate.


Let me be straight- I am not in favor of megarenters as they have been described here on the forums. But Wyndham set up the system and allowed the behaviour, and essentially when it bothered them (or the got enough complaints) the decided to do something. Wyndham now saying that getting rid of these folks will be good for me is honestly something I can not buy. And if Wyndham wanted to work with me, I’d be super excited to do so because the changes they make after making me promises that the changes negate *IS* something that harms me. I wish Wyndham cared about me, and I wished that because I have a few resale points and a LOT of developer points I wasn’t vilified for the very few vip perks I got on them. Discounts and upgrades are far and few between, not the norm. 
What I was indicating was that I do not believe megarenters are the CAUSE of the problems, that lies squarely at the feet of the company. I don’t think owners who rent here and there to use points or to cover some MF fees are the problem, Wyndham told them they could, and in many cases, showed them how. I think infighting amongst owners just makes Wyndham more resolved that they need to exert more control, give fewer perks and clamp down whenever and wherever they think they can or might have success with.
I guess the question to be posed is: are megarenters the problem who deserve all the anger and to be vilified, or would it be better directed at the company?


----------



## Cyrus24

HitchHiker71 said:


> Wyndham will never define the line - no attorney will ever allow them to do so - the wording is intentionally kept as a very high level by design.


That makes Wyndham the bad guy in this entire discussion.  Why can't we all see that?


----------



## CO skier

Cyrus24 said:


> My point was that by the definition of some on the forum anyone who rents if violating intent and is an evil MR.  Yet, one who does complain loudly has rented via LMR and has also taken compensation for rooms rented for coveted Daytona Bike week.  I'd just like to know where the line is.  It's time Wyndham defined the line!!!  And, since no line exists, it seems that we most likely are all in violation of the rules since we have all either rented for cash or taken some type of compensation for putting friends and family up in room at a Wyndham resort.


I think Wyndham takes the same approach as Justice Potter Stewart did in 1964, "I know it when I see it."

There are some clues, though, from past lawsuits

*"Megarenters*

Owners who are operating a commercial vacation rental business

A Megarenter is an Owner who amasses millions of points in their account for the purpose of booking large amounts of inventory so that they can rent out the units for a profit. They are conducting a business by using our business!"

and 

"Wyndham employees periodically used the term “Megarenter” to describe high-volume owners, like Plaintiffs, who used their points to operate rental businesses."



Owners who rent a few reservations probably are not considered to be a "Megarenter."


----------



## Sandi Bo

Cyrus24 said:


> The Blackout Program seems to be working.  BC has openings every weekend, except one, for the next 60 days.  I have to wonder if we won't see this type of bump in availability after the MR's are gone and the Blackout BS is stopped?  Or will MR's just suck up weekends at full point cost  then just start charging more in rent for the units?  Could a person still not come out ahead renting at a price similar to that being offered on EH by Wyndham?
> Still not sure that availability will improve after the MR point ownership is reduced.


Bonnet Creek has always had availability this time of year.  Starting the 2nd week and for sure the 3rd and 4th weeks. Kids are back in school (for the most part - of course even that has changed over the years for a variety of reasons). I would venture to guess the last 2 weeks of August and into September might be one of the lower usage times at Bonnet Creek. The only way to really know if blackout dates worked would be able to compare to usage to the previous times in past years (and still realize there are always reasons that effect usage).  IMO, BC doesn't belong on blackout lists for that time frame.


----------



## VacayKat

HitchHiker71 said:


> I'm fine with the proposed items above.  Richelle and I have explicitly had several conversations and proposals for item 4 above, dependent upon the use cases in scope.  I continue to push this option as a valid part of an overall solution.  I've also seen suggestions to simply stop allowing for purchase of additional GCs.  That's not something I've considered in the past - I need to think about this option more as it relates to any possible F&F program.


Question - how would you add to the friends/family list if it was incorporated? I mean, one would presume you wouldn’t add all the people you know to the list and expect it to remain static. 
For the record, if this worked and was implemented well it would eliminate most, if not all the problems.


----------



## VacayKat

Eric B said:


> The other thing that bothers me is that it's not just effecting rentals, but also exchange with independent exchange companies.  There are some that Wyndham used to have direct relations with and would confirm reservations for deposits (e.g., Trading Places International).  Despite including that as a perk for purchases in the Outrigger Resort Club, they no longer do the confirmations for those deposits (as reported by someone that attempted last year).  The result is that using an independent exchange company requires a guest certificate to complete the exchange - I get it that Wyndham wants you to use their exchange company, but there are often better exchanges to be had elsewhere.  When I do that, I'm not engaging in that activity for "commercial purposes" or with any other intent besides getting a better bang for my buck than I can get through Wyndham/RCI.
> 
> The fundamental problem I see with this whole thing is that Wyndham's go to attempts to curb megarenting activity amount to only the stick and no carrot - if they gave decent value for the money (e.g., at least covering the MF cost for reservations turned over to Extra Holidays) instead of allocating all risk of the transaction to the owners and 60% of the rewards to themselves, they would get more of the rental activity.  Similarly, if they hadn't decided to cut themselves off from the competition in the exchange world, they would be able to get a slice of that.


Trading places program was terminated due to ‘low usage’ by the HOA. There was little to no notice (nov meeting, end of that same year termination, no letter sent to owners)


----------



## VacayKat

Sandi Bo said:


> Bonnet Creek has always had availability this time of year.  Starting the 2nd week and for sure the 3rd and 4th weeks. Kids are back in school (for the most part - of course even that has changed over the years for a variety of reasons). I would venture to guess the last 2 weeks of August and into September might be one of the lower usage times at Bonnet Creek. The only way to really know if blackout dates worked would be able to compare to usage to the previous times in past years (and still realize there are always reasons that effect usage).  IMO, BC doesn't belong on blackout lists for that time frame.


Also hurricane season!!!!


----------



## Cyrus24

VacayKat said:


> For the record, if this worked and was implemented well it would eliminate most, if not all the problems.


It's Wyndham, so we KNOW it would not be implemented well.


----------



## Eric B

VacayKat said:


> Trading places program was terminated due to ‘low usage’ by the HOA. There was little to no notice (nov meeting, end of that same year termination, no letter sent to owners)



I'm sure they didn't take into account the fact that TPI is owned by ILG, which was bought out by Marriott and is a competitor to Wyndham.  Nice that they were able to negotiate the same terms with RCI, the only Wyndham-approved exchange to use with the ownership, thus getting owners access to the same 2 for 1 week deposit deals ... oh, wait.  That would be a carrot.  Easier just to have the HOA, whose board is controlled by Wyndham, decide that usage is to low and call it a day.


----------



## dgalati

Cyrus24 said:


> That makes Wyndham the bad guy in this entire discussion.  Why can't we all see that?


They like a moving target. They can enforce what ever they consider to be commercial activity. Why cant you understand that Wyndham is not the bad guy? Wyndham is eliminating EH competition and it also helps free up inventory so owners to book personal use.


----------



## CO skier

Cyrus24 said:


> Could a person still not come out ahead renting at a price similar to that being offered on EH by Wyndham?


The number of recent 1,0000,000+ points contracts recently listed on Ebay suggest that at least a few megarenters have already concluded that the answer to this question is, "no" or it will not be sufficently profitable to do so.


----------



## HitchHiker71

paxsarah said:


> I will concede, the one way I think a current regular owner would see benefit is from the principle behind fitness memberships - it only works if some people never show up. So unlike a megarenter who we know was eking use out of every single point of their ownership as much as possible, of the 25 or 50 or 100 or whatever number of regular owners replace them, some of them are going to be slackers who don't use or underutilize their ownership. On FB there are plenty of people who say, "I bought three years ago but I've never taken a trip," or "My dad has owned for 20 years but hasn't used his points in the last 10," etc. Those people are how we benefit. Yay.



Yes - because the _intent _of a commercial business is very different than the _intent _of an individual owner booking vacations for personal use.


----------



## Cyrus24

CO skier said:


> The number of recent 1,0000,000+ points contracts recently listed on Ebay suggest that at least a few megarenters have already concluded that the answer to this question is, "no" or it will not be sufficently profitable to do so.


Some will leave, some will stay, and others may come in to fill the void.  It's like me and my little resale contract.  Do I keep it and deal with the hassle or just give it back.


----------



## VacayKat

HitchHiker71 said:


> Yes - because the _intent _of a commercial business is very different than the _intent _of an individual owner booking vacations for personal use.


Yikes. If I am benefitting because others are failing to use what they purchased and are subsidizing me, I feel pretty horrible about that. Makes me feel like I am taking advantage of them. I guess I now need a shower to clean that dirty feeling away.


----------



## HitchHiker71

VacayKat said:


> If they are all CWA points, which is unlikely. Far less if you count all wyndham inventory.



From what I've observed - the majority of large contracts currently on eBay aren't CWA contracts - they are CWS contracts - so I would surmise the majority of MR contracts being held are CWS contracts as a result.


----------



## Lisa P

VacayKat said:


> Does Wyndham not have the same obligation to ensure that it is not taking inventory that an owner might want to reserve? Or is it just owners who are prohibited from doing such things?


I believe they do have this obligation. So far, we have seen multiple postings that EH rentals have also been cancelled when they've overlapped with the newer restricted dates for GC reservations. That says to me that there's an effort to apply those rules across the board.



VacayKat said:


> I guess what I'm not understanding is how megarenters differ from Wyndham and how little folks renting out a stay here and there to manage the ever increasing MF hurt me by their *intent*.


It's not that they hurt you by their intent. It's that their intent puts their actions in conflict with the rules by which we (owners) all play. As the developer/manager/trustee, Wyndham has different responsibilities and rights than individual owners. If I don't like what Wyndham is doing, I can take my complaint directly to them. If I don't like what megarenters are doing (booking blocks of primetime rooms for their business), I don't have any recourse with them directly, only through Wyndham.



VacayKat said:


> ...every time Wyndham let their sales people tell folks to make a sale that they could rent out points to cover their MF then we have an even bigger problem because Wyndham created the problem.


Agreed (Wyndham contributes to multiple problems with their sales practices) and Wyndham needs to address it on behalf of the majority of owners. However, small time renting is not the issue here because those owners are not reserving huge blocks of units (for private business profit) right at the 13-month mark and locking everyone else out. I'd suspect that the majority of megarenter holdings were not sold to megarenters by Wyndham anyway - they largely built their megamillions portfolios through resales and freebie giveaways.



VacayKat said:


> _I am just trying to figure out_ how these folks, who most likely are not as big as everyone thinks they are, are impacting my vacation when the only time I've ever had trouble finding a place to reserve is when I can find the inventory on Extra Holidays, a resort appears to be closed [no inventory at all for months on end] or during the craze earlier this year as folks tried to use up all their covid canceled vacation points.


Understandable. We've had several instances of seeing plentiful rental inventory on Ebay and Redweek, and those are not controlled by Wyndham. Further, Wyndham has not been offering EH rentals during the newer restricted prime time reservation dates/resorts (see above).



VacayKat said:


> So let me ask this, is the way that they are hurting me this: _they are hurting the brand....?_


I could not care less whether megarenters hurt the brand. We just want to be able to see inventory at 10 months out and if we don't see any, we don't want to discover that some individual has made a business out of taking that inventory away (lots of rentals) from fellow owners who want to personally use it for family vacations - which is what we purchased.


----------



## Eric B

HitchHiker71 said:


> Yes - because the _intent _of a commercial business is very different than the _intent _of an individual owner booking vacations for personal use.



While I appreciate the focus on intent, it isn't intent that they're changing the rules of use on.  Instead they are changing the rules on what people can actually do or not do and imposing additional costs on owners that aren't megarenters.  I do not intend to engage in commercial purposes with my Wyndham points and never had - if all they are concerned with is intent, they're picking on the wrong guy.  I'm sure there are a lot of other folks out there in the same boat.

Similarly, the idea that they will be using some unknown formula to determine how many complimentary VIP-eligible points in the next use year to make up for the unintended consequences of their rule changes is a bit annoying.  It seems as though the net result will be to incentivize exactly the opposite behaviors from the ones they should be wanting to incentivize.  My account was realigned last year because I acquired an EOY resale account and they have not historically given me any way to track where the points came from, they were all VIP-eligible and still are based on how the system treats them.  Magically, some of those points will become non-VIP-eligible points in the next use year, though there is no indication which ones they will be or how it will be determined.  All I know is that some people will be getting extra free points to compensate for having Wyndham hose them on point usage for next year; if I were to wait and see what my point totals will be after they figure it out, I won't get anything.  However, if I were to make enough VIP reservations now to tie up all my points in the next use year, they will give me enough free VIP-eligible points to fix it.  I'm not really sure that's a sound approach, but I'm not a fool and do respond to incentives like this - particularly when they're coupled with a generous cancellation policy that will give me the points back for a cancellation if it's >15 days out.  With all the buggering around they did in my account, I don't know what points belong to what contracts and will not be bothered in the least if I wind up with a few extra ones because of they're gross mismanagement over the years - I've lost plenty in the past and they subsidized many of the megarenters with essentially unlimited points.  In the end, my takeaway is that Wyndham doesn't seem to be able to tell their back end from a hole in the ground, which is probably not the impression they want to give their customers.


----------



## CO skier

Cyrus24 said:


> Some will leave,


As a result of the changes in 2017, a number of large points management companies folded.



Cyrus24 said:


> some will stay,


Some of those who stayed are now leaving, apparently.



Cyrus24 said:


> and others may come in to fill the void.


That was the thinking in 2017, too.  If it will be easy for others to "fill the void," why did so many experienced megarenters leave in 2017 and why are they leaving now?


----------



## VacayKat

Lisa P said:


> I believe they do have this obligation. So far, we have seen multiple postings that EH rentals have also been cancelled when they've overlapped with the newer restricted dates for GC reservations. That says to me that there's an effort to apply those rules across the board.
> 
> Understandable. We've had several instances of seeing plentiful rental inventory on Ebay and Redweek, and those are not controlled by Wyndham. Further, Wyndham has not been offering EH rentals during the newer restricted prime time reservation dates/resorts (see above).
> 
> I could not care less whether megarenters hurt the brand. We just want to be able to see inventory at 10 months out and if we don't see any, we don't want to discover that some individual has made a business out of taking that inventory away (lots of rentals) from fellow owners who want to personally use it for family vacations - which is what we purchased.


I think this is where I start to differ- first, Wyndham owns plenty of points, so they have to be renting them in some way. They aren’t just going to lose money. From my dealings with Extraholidays, Wyndham puts these rentals on many websites, not just EH. While I get they currently are not currently promoting them for the blackout periods, are they just going to let inventory lie open at high demand resorts in the future? Maybe this is a trial run to see what the real demand is and then they will take everything in excess of that. We just do not know their plans.
Also, at 10 months out I have always been able to find what I wanted and more. I do think those who can‘t are not so much experiencing a mega renter problem but a demand by availability problem. I do not think it will go away.


----------



## paxsarah

HitchHiker71 said:


> Yes - because the _intent _of a commercial business is very different than the _intent _of an individual owner booking vacations for personal use.


I would hope the intent of an individual owner, just like the intent of a commercial business, would be to use all of their points and get their money's worth. A commercial business is just more efficient at it, and/or more motivated. So the rest of us benefit from the owners who don't actually live up to their intent.


----------



## Braindead

Eric B said:


> if an owner books a stay in the VIP discount window and rents that stay out, it's beneficial to the system as a whole.
> The reason the units available in that window are not booked by other owners is very likely because they don't want them or don't own sufficient points to book them
> but it's clearly not the highly desirable stays that get rented this way.


Mega renters create a lot availability for THEMSELVES in the 60 day discount & upgrade window.
Anything not rented is cancelled but that doesn’t mean that they don’t try catching that availability coming back with discounts & upgrades.
By snatching that cancelled reservation they put a renter on it then go cancel a rented reservation trying to catch it when it comes. Repeat -repeat-repeat-etc.
A little different twist on the old cancel rebook, but don’t kid yourself it’s happening a lot.


----------



## HitchHiker71

VacayKat said:


> Was looking deeper into the financials.
> It appears that in 2020 the developer paid $45,984,193 to the association (CWA) for any unsold points in any given month, at the same rate as other owners($6.28/1000). If we pretend it was the same # of points each month (aka average the costs) it means for CWA Wyndham owns 73,223,237,300 CWA points at any given month in 2020. (Someone check the math, it is Sunday so math free zone, could be way off, lol) So, if the math is correct, this makes Wyndham’s use far greater than any megarenter, and this is just the CWA inventory.



Exactly where did you source the $45,984,193 number from?  I would need to go look at the financials to evaluate the math, but either way, IIRC Wyndham cannot dip into both the sales bucket and the usage bucket for any one contract at the same time.  So if they are converting any one CWA contract for sales - then Wyndham cannot also rent those points via EH (consume those points).  When Wyndham rents points from actual recovered contracts from CE for example - either those contracts become dedicated for rental usage - or for fresh sales via the Sales & Marketing division.  it is either/or not both/and.  How Wyndham uses contracts is subject to the same contraints as owners unless otherwise noted in the founding trust documents.  So if Wyndham chooses to rent points against any one contract - it is consuming use year points within that contract - and therefore cannot resell those same points consumed from that same contract.  That's my current understanding of how the EH process works.  I'll try to validate the math in another post at a later time.


----------



## Lisa P

VacayKat said:


> Just looked - and for the dates at Christmas in my desired location there is availability on EH that I couldn't book which would have given me better accommodations.


Christmas is only 4.5 months away. If you look at a primetime reservation 10 months away, it's booked solid and you find available rentals, I be more concerned.



Eric B said:


> ...if they [Wyndham] gave decent value for the money (e.g., at least covering the MF cost for reservations turned over to Extra Holidays) instead of allocating all risk of the transaction to the owners and 60% of the rewards to themselves, they would get more of the rental activity.


Wouldn't that be a REAL benefit?!!?!



VacayKat said:


> ...are megarenters the problem who deserve all the anger and to be vilified, or would it be better directed at the company?


Only speaking for myself, I'm not angry at megarenters or at Wyndham and I don't wish to vilify anyone. I'd just like to see the problem addressed for the future. It's not an easy one to tackle. Finding an overall Win-Win will still always result in _someone_ losing _something_.


----------



## paxsarah

HitchHiker71 said:


> We've already proven this oft used theory is incorrect - a TUG Wyndham owner even ran a test by submitting a blackout period rentral to EH recently for January timeframe just to see if EH would accept a reservation that overlapped into a blackout period.  The reservation was turned away by EH - for exactly this reason.  Feel free to run the same test yourself - you'll get the same result.  Wyndham is currently honoring the same blackout periods on EH for owner reservations.


They currently are, but do they have to? I agree that on principle they should be bound to the same blackout periods and that mostly they have held themselves to that so far, but is there a legal obligation for them to? I doubt it.


----------



## VacayKat

HitchHiker71 said:


> Exactly where did you source the $45,984,193 number from?  I would need to go look at the financials to evaluate the math, but either way, IIRC Wyndham cannot dip into both the sales bucket and the usage bucket for any one contract at the same time.  So if they are converting any one CWA contract for sales - then Wyndham cannot also rent those points via EH (consume those points).  When Wyndham rents points from actual recovered contracts from CE for example - either those contracts become dedicated for rental usage - or for fresh sales via the Sales & Marketing division.  it is either/or not both/and.  How Wyndham uses contracts is subject to the same contraints as owners unless otherwise noted in the founding trust documents.  So if Wyndham chooses to rent points against any one contract - it is consuming use year points within that contract - and therefore cannot resell those same points consumed from that same contract.  That's my current understanding of how the EH process works.  I'll try to validate the math in another post at a later time.


it was in the audited financials in my owner profile - they are public documents.


----------



## BingoBangoBongo

CO skier said:


> That was the thinking in 2017, too. If it will be easy for others to "fill the void," why did so many experienced megarenters leave in 2017 and why are they leaving now?



Human behavior, especially finance related can be interesting at times.  I have a small building near my house that has hosted at least 10 different pizza operations in the past 25 years.  Each new owner thinks they have the secret recipe, but fail to realize that the location is awful.  Apparently the pizza guys have finally thrown in the towel and it now hosts a Creole type takeout place that never has any cars in the tiny parking lot every time I pass by.  Some people are driven by the opportunity that in reality isn't there.


----------



## VacayKat

Lisa P said:


> Christmas is only 4.5 months away. If you look at a primetime reservation 10 months away, it's booked solid and you find available rentals, I be more concerned.


I was only making the point that if rentals by megarenters were the problem, folks like me who want to reserve a place should be able to without finding any rental inventory. And 4.5 months out is a LONG time for most vacation travellers. 
For the record, I reserved originally at 10 months with adequate availability and when family members finally got around to making decisions, at 7 months out I could not find anything and the reservations I put back in did not show back up. I was able to book b/c accessible units were free. [you can book them if nothing else is available - you do not need to leave on the off chance someone might want them, at that point they are fair game] And I didn’t get what I needed, I took smaller rooms. So yeah, those rentals were reserved soon after the 10 month without a doubt.


----------



## troy12n

paxsarah said:


> I would hope the intent of an individual owner, just like the intent of a commercial business, would be to use all of their points and get their money's worth. A commercial business is just more efficient at it, and/or more motivated. So the rest of us benefit from the owners who don't actually live up to their intent.



It's up to an individual owner how efficiently they want to use their ownership. Speaking for myself, I like to think I use it the most efficiently. 

Club Wyndham exists to provide lodging, not for owners to rent out their units for profit. This is clearly not the intent of Club Wyndham timeshare ownership... as @HitchHiker71 has alluded to several times. 

And maximizing profit margin for a Mega Renter certainly isn't the intent of Club Wyndham...


----------



## dgalati

Braindead said:


> Can we all agree on a few items?
> All rentals are commercial activity.
> It doesn’t matter if you do 1 a year or a 1,000 a year it’s commercial activity.
> Almost all owners have rented units. I’m in this group.
> It doesn’t matter if an owner checks in for a renter or uses a GC it’s still commercial activity.
> If an owner receives any compensation at all it’s a rental & commercial activity. Even if the price doesn’t cover the MFs on the points used it’s still a rental.
> 
> A couple of examples to back up the above items.
> You do auto repair in your garage at home & some clients are family or friends cars while receiving any compensation even just a tip it’s commercial.
> You do house cleaning & some clients are family or friends houses while receiving any compensation even just a tip it’s commercial.
> An example less extreme, while staying at Canterbury in San Francisco we noticed all the mini grocery marts & they‘re commercial just like Wal Mart is commercial.
> 
> I’m not for eliminating rentals & I don’t think hardly any owners are. I don’t think Wyndham is either.
> I’m not for eliminating family & friends vacations. I sure hope NO owners are either. I’m pretty sure Wyndham isn’t either.
> 
> So what’s the answer? My opinions
> 1. No discounts & or upgrades using GCs.
> 2. Resorts have to help on owners checking in for rentals. An owner doing rentals lives close by a resort & is constantly checking in. There’s only a few employees assigning unit numbers they know who they are.
> 3. Get control of the amount of GCs being used by a few. Raising the cost & less free ones.
> 4. I’m open to a family & friends list.
> 
> I’m 100% against the current blackout list ruining family & friends group vacations & hope it goes away ASAP. Tomorrow isn’t soon enough for me!!!
> This is the worst thing Wyndham could’ve come up with IMHO!! Wyndham stop punishing practically all owners with the blackout list!!!!!!


IMHO Why not just eliminate all discounts and free upgrades? Your list is biased towards your way of traveling. For the record I never rented any of the points I owned and did find it advantageous to travel by renting from a VIP using resale points with VIP discounts and free upgrades. The blackout list worked just fine for me being flexible in my travel plans (renting from a VIP or using my own points). I am sure other owners would agree it also freed up availability for personal use.. The Family and friends list also open to abuse but who cares as long as "it goes away". In a perfect world of course we could "all agree" as long as everyone gets what makes them happy. Here is my only request since we coming up with lists that will only benefit ourselves and VIP privileges'. ---  I would like to request that Wyndham gets rid of the negative balance issue so I can go back to flipping deeds. 
I’m 100% against the current negative balance issue as it ruining my family vacations & hope it goes away ASAP. Tomorrow isn’t soon enough for me!!!
This is the worst thing Wyndham could’ve come up with IMHO!! Wyndham stop punishing practically all owners with the Negative balance issue!!!!!!


----------



## HitchHiker71

VacayKat said:


> Alright, suppose I agree to your premise, if I, an owner, have points available to me, and I can not find any availability at the resort that I want to book at during a certain time frame, but find gobs and gobs of availability at Extra Holidays and end up shelling out loads of money per night to rent the resort, is that not the same problem? [because I've had this exact problem, and paid about $1000 for a 2-3 night rental when all the fees and add-ons were calculated. It has been a while so I don't have the receipt handy]
> 
> *Does Wyndham not have the same obligation to ensure that it is not taking inventory that an owner might want to reserve? Or is it just owners who are prohibited from doing such things?*
> 
> I guess what I'm not understanding is how megarenters differ from Wyndham and how little folks renting out a stay here and there to manage the ever increasing MF hurt me by their *intent*. And if that is the problem, then every time Wyndham let their sales people tell folks to make a sale that they could rent out points to cover their MF then we have an even bigger problem because Wyndham created the problem.
> 
> Do not get me wrong - I am not suggesting that someone should use a timeshare for a business. That sounds like the most painful way to make a living. _I am just trying to figure out_ how these folks, who most likely are not as big as everyone thinks they are, are impacting my vacation when the only time I've ever had trouble finding a place to reserve is when I can find the inventory on Extra Holidays, a resort appears to be closed [no inventory at all for months on end] or during the craze earlier this year as folks tried to use up all their covid canceled vacation points. Quite literally, there is no way I would have even thought it a thing before finding these forums where megarenters are the scapegoat. So let me ask this, is the way that they are hurting me this: _they are hurting the brand....?_



The difference is that Wyndham didn't sign a legally binding contract that prevents commercial use for that which it already owns.  The MRs did - at some point during their ownership process - sign such contracts.  The rest is just details.  Wyndham is entitled to do whatever they want with what they own - within the restrictions defined in the founding trust documents.  MRs are not.  People here on TUG keep trying to hold Wyndham to the same restrictions - why?  They own the entire league - they define the rules of the game - they don't play by the same rules - they never have and they never will.  I really do not understand the entire premise of the arguments being made here with this premise in mind.

I don't disagree that past Wyndham ELT's created the problem - but quite obviously the current ELT at Wyndham doesn't share the same values as in the past, and are taking substantive steps toward eliminating commercial usage of their timeshare systems as a result.  For those few of us who moderate on the FB forums - the topic of MRs comes up quite often as a huge negative - especially on the forums where the MRs and PM's post rentals constantly.  It just hasn't come up much here on TUG - because TUG represents the exception not the rule - and many of the megarenters are disproportionately represented here on TUG.  So it's not surprising to see arguments against changing the system from those who were and in some cases still are very much invested in keeping the status quo.  But we have more and more newer members who look back at those past times - even though we recognize there are many here who affectionately embrace the MRs because of their knowledge and contributions - and politely but firmly say - it was good while it lasted - but that time has come and gone - and as @JanT has said repeatedly - resistance is futile. If you run a commercial rental business - using Wyndham timeshare inventory - your days are numbered - particularly if you received a letter spelling this out already.  For the small minority who do fall into this bucket - the game is up.  Fortunately - for the vast majority of normal owners - including the vast majority of VIP owners - this change we're so passionately debating - comes as a welcome change - and has zero impact on 99+% of the owner base.

The mere fact that this is such a hotly debated topic here on TUG - that in and of itself should tell us all something.  I know what it tells me - what does it tell you?


----------



## dgalati

troy12n said:


> It's up to an individual owner how efficiently they want to use their ownership. Speaking for myself, I like to think I use it the most efficiently.
> 
> Club Wyndham exists to provide lodging, not for owners to rent out their units for profit. This is clearly not the intent of Club Wyndham timeshare ownership... as @HitchHiker71 has alluded to several times.
> 
> And maximizing profit margin for a Mega Renter certainly isn't the intent of Club Wyndham...


Let me ask all of you gurus a question. If Wyndham starts to sell yearly subscription's to travel would these be short term rentals?  Or would these subscriptions (aka Discovery packages) be considered ownership?


----------



## Cyrus24

dgalati said:


> I would like to request that Wyndham gets rid of the negative balance issue so I can go back to flipping deeds.


Pay that $12/1000 and I'm sure it would go away.


----------



## dgalati

HitchHiker71 said:


> The difference is that Wyndham didn't sign a legally binding contract that prevents commercial use for that which it already owns.  The MRs did - at some point during their ownership process - sign such contracts.  The rest is just details.  Wyndham is entitled to do whatever they want with what they own - within the restrictions defined in the founding trust documents.  MRs are not.  People here on TUG keep trying to hold Wyndham to the same restrictions - why?  They own the entire league - they define the rules of the game - they don't play by the same rules - they never have and they never will.  I really do not understand the entire premise of the arguments being made here with this premise in mind.
> 
> I don't disagree that past Wyndham ELT's created the problem - but quite obviously the current ELT at Wyndham doesn't share the same values as in the past, and are taking substantive steps toward eliminating commercial usage of their timeshare systems as a result.  For those few of us who moderate on the FB forums - the topic of MRs comes up quite often as a huge negative - especially on the forums where the MRs and PM's post rentals constantly.  It just hasn't come up much here on TUG - because TUG represents the exception not the rule - and many of the megarenters are disproportionately represented here on TUG.  So it's not surprising to see arguments against changing the system from those who were and in some cases still are very much invested in keeping the status quo.  But we have more and more newer members who look back at those past times - even though we recognize there are many here who affectionately embrace the MRs because of their knowledge and contributions - and politely but firmly say - it was good while it lasted - but that time has come and gone - and as @JanT has said repeatedly - resistance is futile. If you run a commercial rental business - using Wyndham timeshare inventory - your days are numbered - particularly if you received a letter spelling this out already.  For the small minority who do fall into this bucket - the game is up.  Fortunately - for the vast majority of normal owners - including the vast majority of VIP owners - this change we're so passionately debating - comes as a welcome change - and has zero impact on 99+% of the owner base.
> 
> The mere fact that this is such a hotly debated topic here on TUG - that in and of itself should tell us all something.  I know what it tells me - what does it tell you?


TUG does not represent the majority of owners but the majority of TUG Wyndham posters are VIP owners that have played the system to their advantage. I have no problem with playing the system but time has come for Mega renters to concede to a checkmate.


----------



## Eric B

HitchHiker71 said:


> I don't disagree that past Wyndham ELT's created the problem - but quite obviously the current ELT at Wyndham doesn't share the same values as in the past, and are taking substantive steps toward eliminating commercial usage of their timeshare systems as a result.



If that's truly the case, then bless their hearts.  The concern it raises is the potential for a future Wyndham ELT to revert - what are they doing to make these changes permanent?  A secondary concern is that there doesn't seem to be much in the way of recognition that they are causing collateral damage and do not appear to be doing much to address that for the folks that are effected.  There's always the "you can just call owner resolution" but I don't need to speak to them to know the response I'll get - "look at the old program policies that were in effect before the ones that were when you bought, we're just restoring the old rules and your purchase under the then current rules should not matter."


----------



## dgalati

Cyrus24 said:


> Pay that $12/1000 and I'm sure it would go away.


They couldn't steam roll this guy. Like @am1 stated change the strategy to survive or tap out.


----------



## HitchHiker71

paxsarah said:


> I would hope the intent of an individual owner, just like the intent of a commercial business, would be to use all of their points and get their money's worth. A commercial business is just more efficient at it, and/or more motivated. So the rest of us benefit from the owners who don't actually live up to their intent.



I hear what you're saying, but I respectfully disagree. We are talking about the intent of the entire system here - and the _entire system _was not built nor intended for commercial use. How efficiently owners utilize the system - is therefore not relevant to the premise. That said, if we want to examine the intent of each use case (commercial renters vs vacation owners), the intent for a commercial business is to make profits (for which the system was not intended - as is proven by the commercial use clauses). The intent of a normal owner is to schedule and take vacations for personal use. How efficiently either class uses the system is moot, but the owners who learn how to utilize the system better for personal use - will certainly be better off than the owners who don't - but in this instance - both sets of vacation owners would be using the system as intended.


----------



## HitchHiker71

Eric B said:


> Thank you for your feedback.  Reasonable minds can disagree, of course.  We'll see what the net result winds up being after the latest updates are done.  IMHO, Wyndham has the power to set up the program guidelines in a way that greatly reduces the use of the system by the megarenters as well as the information necessary to identify who they are if they so choose.  For some reason, they've made the business decision that it isn't in their best interest to do that.  I'll be interested in seeing what happens to systemwide availability once things are are implemented and the perturbations settle down.  I have no illusions that this will cure the issues people have with being able to reserve high demand times on short notice.



I believe Wyndham is taking an all of the above appproach here.  IMHO the letters that went out to those running commercial businesses was just round one of an overall multi-round strategy.  So while they are making very narrow changes to the online system that only impact less than 1% of the ownership base (VIPs who hold resale contracts) - at the same time Wyndham is taking other actions to weed out MRs as has been noted on this and other threads - it's just that the letter that went out isn't being discussed because the people impacted don't want to shine a light on themselves and paint an even larger target on their back in the process.  I can't blame them really - had I received a letter - I'm far from certain I would admit to it - especially if I had existing rentals already processed - because if my customers got wind that some of my rentals were subject to cancellation - many would likely cancel their reservations with me - even if those reservations were still valid - as customers don't like risk with respect to their vacation plans.  If they could make other arrangements without the perceived risks involved - I suspect many would do exactly that.


----------



## HitchHiker71

paxsarah said:


> I asked essentially this same question on one of the other threads a few days ago. FB users are big mad when they can't find availability with their own points, but they can find it for rent for cash on eBay or Travelocity or wherever. What happens, _perception-wise_, when EH (and whatever other outlets Wyndham may use to rent out inventory) becomes the main source for rentals of Wyndham resorts? Even if real availability is opened up for actual owners through all these changes, for the owner who doesn't manage to book it, are they still mad but now it's just more likely they're mad at EH?



If/when this happens - Wyndham will have the manage the negative perceptions when that time comes.  Right now - we have already proven that Wyndham is _not _accepting EH reservations during blackout periods - so the theory that Wyndham will be renting inventory during blackout periods that owners cannot rent out - doesn't hold water at present. That doesn't mean Wyndham might not do so in the future - again - it's their ballgame and their rules. We are just playing on their field.


----------



## Braindead

dgalati said:


> Your list is biased towards your way of traveling.
> The blackout list worked just fine for me being flexible in my travel plans (renting from a VIP or using my own points).
> The Family and friends list also open to abuse but who cares as long as "it goes away". In a perfect world of course we could "all agree" as long as everyone gets what makes them happy.


You couldn’t be more wrong! You don’t have a clue on my way of traveling.
Blackout list.
1.Are you in favor of families not being able to spend the holidays together at a resort? Doesn’t affect me but I think it’s hurting countless families this year!
2.Maybe an owner family had a new family move in the area lately & the kids have hit off with the parents now thinking of going somewhere for a weekend. Are you against that? Not effecting me at this time but I think it’s hurting a lot of families now.

No discounts & upgrades on GCs.
I’ve made rental reservations for friends in the 60 day window with discounts & upgrades. This does effect me but I can still see the big picture that maybe it should be changed.

Those are just a few examples of you not having a clue & not looking at the big picture. The negative points balance effects one that I know of, YOU. Now that’s the definition of wanting it 1 owners way!!

If I had it my way there would’ve been no rule changes, Wyndham should’ve pinpointed the problem owners & left the rest of us alone!!


----------



## Eric B

HitchHiker71 said:


> ... when this happens - Wyndham will have [to] manage the negative perceptions....



Bottom line for this is that it would be appropriate to magnify the negative perceptions on social media to as great an extent as is possible if you find this to be true.  Many corporations do attempt to address concerns that are raised there, though it is likely that you would get a better response on Twitter, Facebook, or TikTok than you would on TUG since the users here seem to represent a minority of Wyndham owners.  Perhaps they would respond if they were prodded elsewhere.


----------



## HitchHiker71

Eric B said:


> ... and as a result there are no clear and present violations of the Commercial Use Terms and Conditions.  That fact will leave the system design as the only way to try to disincentivize the behaviors that don't benefit them and another crop of folks will spring up to fill the void created by the intentional ambiguity and the current round of changes to get the current megarenters.  If the corporate management really wanted to set things up in a manner that actually addresses the problem, they could do so explicitly.  I'm glad to hear that you've seen the light on this.



Let's hone my statement a bit further:  Wyndham will never define the line publicly to the ownership base - as doing so - would tell the offending owners exactly how to continue to game the system if the boundaries are explicitly defined.  I'm 100% certain that Wyndham has these boundaries explicitly defined.  Why?  Because _all _owners beyond that line, received cease and desist letters indicating their account has been flagged for commercial use activity. The line has been defined - but I have zero expectation that the line will ever be defined to the ownership base - especially given doing so doesn't impact 99+% of normal owners. That's good business practice IME - focus on the 80% who make up the masses - not the 20% who are the exceptions - or as is the case here - the less than 1% exceptions. Does anyone really expect Wyndham to do this given these facts? I sure don't. I wouldn't do so in a million years if I were Wyndham - I don't manage by exception - I manage by the rules.


----------



## paxsarah

HitchHiker71 said:


> How efficiently either class uses the system is moot


Except that I think the start of this subthread was my observation that the most obvious benefit to an _existing individual owner_ from this eventual transfer of points from megarenters to additional regular owners is that some of the additional regular owners will simply not use their points effectively or at all. That's different from the intent of the entire system. I know the overarching goal is to get commercial interests out and individual vacationers in. On a system level, that will be a success. But as an individual, in total I see the same number of points all being used to chase the best reservations, and I didn't where I as an individual benefitted from that. Except when I realized that regular vacationers are more likely to let their points go to waste.


----------



## raygo123

What's the cheapest way to buy premium resorts? A good base for a subscription program.

Sent from my Lenovo TB-X606F using Tapatalk


----------



## troy12n

paxsarah said:


> Except that I think the start of this subthread was my observation that the most obvious benefit to an _existing individual owner_ from this eventual transfer of points from megarenters to additional regular owners is that some of the additional regular owners will simply not use their points effectively or at all. That's different from the intent of the entire system. I know the overarching goal is to get commercial interests out and individual vacationers in. On a system level, that will be a success. But as an individual, in total I see the same number of points all being used to chase the best reservations, and I didn't where I as an individual benefitted from that. Except when I realized that regular vacationers are more likely to let their points go to waste.



How do you figure existing owners now won't be able to use their ownership after these changes?


----------



## markb53

troy12n said:


> So legit question.
> 
> This issue seems to be pretty polarizing.
> 
> On one side we have people against the mega renters. The rationale (right or wrong) is that mega renters are hurting regular owners ability to use the timeshare, and book. Especially at high demand resorts.
> 
> On the other side, we seem to have people pro-mega renter.
> 
> On this side of the camp, we have people who ARE the mega renters themselves, who have a vested interest in keeping the status quo
> Then we have another group of people... i'm not sure exactly what their angle is. Why they support mega renters. They have no vested interest in the issue. And in fact an argument can be made that by supporting mega renters, they are in fact acting against their own best interests.
> 
> So... what's the deal? Why support mega renters?



I am not a mega renter. I am also not a VIP. I am a regular owner. I have 182k CWA I purchased from Wyndham and I also have a Panama City Beach 210k EOY-E that I purchased on the resale market in order to reduce my average point cost. I have been an owner for over 10 years. I have never had a problem getting reservations I want for the date I need. I never use ARP. I generally book at 10 months. But sometimes at 4 to 5 months. I have never tried to get bike week at Daytona or Mardi Gras at New Orleans so maybe that’s why I havev’t had a problem. I have booked a 3BR presidential at Bali Hai over Christmas at 10 months. I have stayed at over 20 different resorts during prime weeks, since until recently I could only travel during school holidays. I have no particular feelings one way or the other about the mega renters in general since it doesn’t seem like they have had any effect on my ability to  use my points when I want and were I want. When I first purchased from Wyndham I was pretty upset when I discovered the lies I was told. And I have to say that it was finding TUG back in 2011 and reading the posts by Ron and others that calmed me down and showed my how to use what I purchased including how to buy some resale points to make my ownership more useful. 

Just my 2 cents.


----------



## HitchHiker71

VacayKat said:


> Yikes. If I am benefitting because others are failing to use what they purchased and are subsidizing me, I feel pretty horrible about that. Makes me feel like I am taking advantage of them. I guess I now need a shower to clean that dirty feeling away.



Why?  I don't feel that way.  Those who understand the system best - and utilize it best - will enjoy the system and benefit from it the most.  That is a universally true statement for any complex system.  As long as we stay within the intended uses of the complex system and don't use it for anything other than it's intended use, we are playing by the rules and are within our rights to enjoy any advantage over others using the same system due to our expertise in using said system.


----------



## raygo123

troy12n said:


> How do you figure existing owners now won't be able to use their ownership after these changes?


It is all about a steady income stream. CWA owners instead will be offered into a program a true club. A right to use. That's how Mexico handles it. Cancun it will be an affiliate of the affiliate. Lol

Sent from my Lenovo TB-X606F using Tapatalk


----------



## HitchHiker71

Cyrus24 said:


> I really take exception to the old crew/new crew chatter.  What defines Old?  Age, Wyndham ownership time, TUG membership time, attitude, MR/everybody else, Wyndham only owner versus Hybrid/Resale owner?  Perhaps you could define this as I take offense to the terminology since I don't really know where the line is drawn.  I don't need a dissertation, just a quick statement as to the line.



I will PM you with an answer, since I don't want this type of chatter to foster any more division that it may already have done here.


----------



## VacayKat

HitchHiker71 said:


> Why?  I don't feel that way.  Those who understand the system best - and utilize it best - will enjoy the system and benefit from it the most.  That is a universally true statement for any complex system.  As long as we stay within the intended uses of the complex system and don't use it for anything other than it's intended use, we are playing by the rules and are within our rights to enjoy any advantage over others using the same system due to our expertise in using said system.


Quite simply because I do not believe I should profit at another’s expense.I find that to be a repulsive condition and avoid it at all costs.


----------



## HitchHiker71

VacayKat said:


> Let me be straight- I am not in favor of megarenters as they have been described here on the forums. But Wyndham set up the system and allowed the behaviour, and essentially when it bothered them (or the got enough complaints) the decided to do something. Wyndham now saying that getting rid of these folks will be good for me is honestly something I can not buy. And if Wyndham wanted to work with me, I’d be super excited to do so because the changes they make after making me promises that the changes negate *IS* something that harms me. I wish Wyndham cared about me, and I wished that because I have a few resale points and a LOT of developer points I wasn’t vilified for the very few vip perks I got on them. Discounts and upgrades are far and few between, not the norm.



I wrote about this on the other thread in detail already, so please refer to my other posts on the other MR thread for details, but there's some responsibility on both sides.  But long story short, my answer was:  just because we _can _do something, does not mean we _should.  _Just because you can game a system - doesn't mean you should.  This usually breaks down into 10/80/10 buckets.  10% rulemakers (Wyndham).  80% rule folllowers (masses who use the system as intended), 10% rulebreakers (those who use the system as it was not intended).  Unfortunately, IME, it is almost always the rule followers who pay the biggest price for the rulebreakers.  That is what is happening here yes?  You and I are paying a price for those who chose to game the system (the rulebreakers).  



> What I was indicating was that I do not believe megarenters are the CAUSE of the problems, that lies squarely at the feet of the company. I don’t think owners who rent here and there to use points or to cover some MF fees are the problem, Wyndham told them they could, and in many cases, showed them how. I think infighting amongst owners just makes Wyndham more resolved that they need to exert more control, give fewer perks and clamp down whenever and wherever they think they can or might have success with.
> I guess the question to be posed is: are megarenters the problem who deserve all the anger and to be vilified, or would it be better directed at the company?



Let's ask a basic question then to get at your perspective/point.  If the MRs/PMs did not exist in the first place - and the system was not gamed - who believes that Wyndham would be taking the steps they are taking today?  I for one sincerely doubt these steps would be taken today were it not for the MRs/PMs.  I suspect some will disagree - but my question to those folks would be why?  Wyndham is likely taking these steps, because as @dgalati has said - there's a significant enough cost to the Sales & Marketing division that has to fund VIP benefits that they finally decided that the ROI is no longer there - which is a nice way of saying it's costing them more than they are making on VIP upsells.  If that cost wasn't there, why would Wyndham expend the considerable amount of time and effort (read dollars) involved to do so?  If we accept that argument, then, at least to some extent, we can place _some responsbility and accountability _at the feet of the MRs/PMs. Is Wyndham blameless? Nope, they share some blame too - but there are at least some here who want us to accept the premise that its "us vs them" with respect to Wyndham. It's both/and not either/or. This isn't a binary choice in other words. There is plenty of blame to go around if that's what we want to attempt to define here.


----------



## HitchHiker71

VacayKat said:


> Quite simply because I do not believe I should profit at another’s expense.I find that to be a repulsive condition and avoid it at all costs.



Hmmm...that's another way of saying you want equal outcome and not just equal opportunity - at least if I'm understanding what you are saying correctly.  I'm definitely not in the equal outcome camp to be sure, but that's just me, and we can agree to disagree.


----------



## dgalati

Braindead said:


> You couldn’t be more wrong! You don’t have a clue on my way of traveling.
> Blackout list.
> 1.Are you in favor of families not being able to spend the holidays together at a resort? Doesn’t affect me but I think it’s hurting countless families this year!
> 2.Maybe an owner family had a new family move in the area lately & the kids have hit off with the parents now thinking of going somewhere for a weekend. Are you against that? Not effecting me at this time but I think it’s hurting a lot of families now.
> 
> No discounts & upgrades on GCs.
> I’ve made rental reservations for friends in the 60 day window with discounts & upgrades. This does effect me but I can still see the big picture that maybe it should be changed.
> 
> Those are just a few examples of you not having a clue & not looking at the big picture. The negative points balance effects one that I know of, YOU. Now that’s the definition of wanting it 1 owners way!!
> 
> If I had it my way there would’ve been no rule changes, Wyndham should’ve pinpointed the problem owners & left the rest of us alone!!


Unfortunately we all just can't have our way. Some of the privileges we both paid for are gone. Some just paid more the others but it was posted to show you how silly your wish list is. What you want will affect other owners and their travel needs. Try to look at both sides of the coin and not be so self serving in your personal views. You have any sorrow for the count less owners that were sold up to VIP on the premise of renting to cover maintenance fees? Wyndham does have some culpability for the mega-renter mess.


----------



## VacayKat

HitchHiker71 said:


> Is Wyndham blameless? Nope, they share some blame too - but there are at least some here who want us to accept the premise that its "us vs them" with respect to Wyndham. It's both/and not either/or. This isn't a binary choice in other words. There is plenty of blame to go around if that's what we want to attempt to define here.


ok- you used words that I agree with. I am not saying those who abused the system are lacking culpability, but if you set up a system that promotes the loopholes and then complain when someone uses them, it’s the person/company who set up the situation that caused the abuse. [let’s just say I’ve been reading a lot of social psychology lately and all the research shows this to be the case]


----------



## VacayKat

HitchHiker71 said:


> Hmmm...that's another way of saying you want equal outcome and not just equal opportunity - at least if I'm understanding what you are saying correctly.  I'm definitely not in the equal outcome camp to be sure, but that's just me, and we can agree to disagree.


Or more accurately, if someone pays for something I want them to use it. I don’t want anyone buying a timeshare who won’t book vacation and go on vacation. But I’m not popular with sales folks, lol!


----------



## HitchHiker71

paxsarah said:


> They currently are, but do they have to? I agree that on principle they should be bound to the same blackout periods and that mostly they have held themselves to that so far, but is there a legal obligation for them to? I doubt it.



No, they do _not _have to - and that is why I indicated as such in my reply. Wyndham's system, Wyndham's rules. It's on the honor system right now - and we would be wise to use the old "trust but verify" method moving forward to test this theory on a fairly regular basis. Nothing wrong with keeping Wyndham honest to their claims where applicable - and they should expect nothing less from their loyal owners.


----------



## HitchHiker71

dgalati said:


> Let me ask all of you gurus a question. If Wyndham starts to sell yearly subscription's to travel would these be short term rentals?  Or would these subscriptions (aka Discovery packages) be considered ownership?



It would simply be a termed ownership model as opposed to perpetual ownership model.


----------



## HitchHiker71

Eric B said:


> If that's truly the case, then bless their hearts.  The concern it raises is the potential for a future Wyndham ELT to revert - what are they doing to make these changes permanent?  A secondary concern is that there doesn't seem to be much in the way of recognition that they are causing collateral damage and do not appear to be doing much to address that for the folks that are effected.  There's always the "you can just call owner resolution" but I don't need to speak to them to know the response I'll get - "look at the old program policies that were in effect before the ones that were when you bought, we're just restoring the old rules and your purchase under the then current rules should not matter."



Whatever Wyndham is doing for whatever strategic reasons - rest assured they are doing so because of metrics and decisions that on some level create more profits for the company, while also attempting to balance ownership concerns in the process.  There is _nothing_ preventing _anything _from occurring in the future with respect to enhancing profitability.  Wyndham has a fiscal duty to it's shareholders and will always focus on doing what is in the best interests of the shareholders as long as it is a publicly held company.  Remember  - it's collateral damage to less than 1% of the collective ownership, that will have a net positive impact on the other 99% of the ownership base.  How is that not good business practice?  Wyndham is not restoring anything, they are finally enforcing rules that have always been in place according to the majority of available documentation.  Granted, we can be unhappy about the timing - I know I'm not entirely happy about the when - but I get the why and I agree with it - and I have some quibbles with the how - I'd honestly have preferred Wyndham just repeated what they did in 2016 - but I recognize that if they _onl_y did that - the problem would just come back again over time - because there are always rulebreakers who will game the system. This time Wyndham is taking a both/and approach - changing the system to eliminate the loophole - and going after the MRs via cease and desist letters and corresponding GC reservation cancellation enforcements, likely with further action lying in wait for those who do not adhere to the cease and desist letters.


----------



## HitchHiker71

Eric B said:


> Bottom line for this is that it would be appropriate to magnify the negative perceptions on social media to as great an extent as is possible if you find this to be true.  Many corporations do attempt to address concerns that are raised there, though it is likely that you would get a better response on Twitter, Facebook, or TikTok than you would on TUG since the users here seem to represent a minority of Wyndham owners.  Perhaps they would respond if they were prodded elsewhere.



Wyndham already pays quite a bit of attention to the FB groups - and they have their own FB group as well where they field comments and complaints.


----------



## dgalati

HitchHiker71 said:


> It would simply be a termed ownership model as opposed to perpetual ownership model.


Would this be considered a form of flipping of deeds? Now when the subscription ends mid year does the subscription model impose a negative balance on the exiting owner if the owner has multiple subscriptions? Is this subscription model a arm or part of EH?


----------



## HitchHiker71

VacayKat said:


> Or more accurately, if someone pays for something I want them to use it. I don’t want anyone buying a timeshare who won’t book vacation and go on vacation. But I’m not popular with sales folks, lol!



On that we can also agree - Wyndham does a miserable job of selling their product - and oftentimes sells timeshares to folks where it clearly is not a good match for their vacation styles.  Lots of articles out there that outline how to evaluate whether timesharing is a good match - unfortunately you'll never see nor hear about these articles when attending any timeshare sales presentation.  I wonder why that is...


----------



## HitchHiker71

dgalati said:


> Would this be considered a form of flipping of deeds? Now when the subscription ends mid year does the subscription model impose a negative balance on the exiting owner if the owner has multiple subscriptions? Is this subscription model a arm or part of EH?



If you consider the Discovery program that already exists today a deed flipping program - then I suppose you could.  If not, then no, your logic doesn't hold water.  I've not thought through the details of a subscription offering - but as others have stated - I doubt the timeshare arm will be where Wyndham chooses to introduce any subscription products - I think it will be under the T&L banner - apart from the timesharing banner - though on some level I think they will need to use current Wyndham timeshare locations for the subscription offerings - so am uncertain as to the details in this regard.


----------



## Eric B

HitchHiker71 said:


> Wyndham is not restoring anything, they are finally enforcing rules that have always been in place according to the majority of available documentation.



That is precisely the response I would expect to the concern that the rule did not exist in the Program Guidelines that were provided to me when I purchased with them, particularly since it's a supplemental benefit program that they reserve the right to change.  I can live with it as I don't have that many resale points, but do find it to be a disturbing lack of fair treatment as one of the 1% that is being disadvantaged in order to support changes that might benefit the 99%.  If it were me running the show, I would consider whether it would be appropriate to give the effected 1% some means of bringing the resale points into eligibility rather than just accepting the collateral damage as being inevitable.  The lack of any indication that they are considering that is telling.


----------



## paxsarah

troy12n said:


> How do you figure existing owners now won't be able to use their ownership after these changes?


I don’t figure that.


----------



## VacayKat

Eric B said:


> That is precisely the response I would expect to the concern that the rule did not exist in the Program Guidelines that were provided to me when I purchased with them, particularly since it's a supplemental benefit program that they reserve the right to change.  I can live with it as I don't have that many resale points, but do find it to be a disturbing lack of fair treatment as one of the 1% that is being disadvantaged in order to support changes that might benefit the 99%.  If it were me running the show, I would consider whether it would be appropriate to give the effected 1% some means of bringing the resale points into eligibility rather than just accepting the collateral damage as being inevitable.  The lack of any indication that they are considering that is telling.


TBH, I always think this sort of thing is about Wyndham getting the inventory back to resell. They don’t want to make the person who didn’t pay them the fee whole because well wyndhamdid not get their piece of the pie from the purchase. 1% inventory to resell is pretty good $$. Make using it untenable enough and folks will beg you to take it back, or even pay you.


----------



## chapjim

HitchHiker71 said:


> The Wyndham of old would have done exactly that.  The current Wyndham ELT obviously wants to give the megarenters the opportunity to make a graceful exit prior to taking more punitive steps.  For anyone who received a the letter in scope, you have been forewarned.  The next steps taken IMHO will likely be similar to those taken in 2016 if Wyndham does not see cessation of the violation of commercial use clauses.



How should I take the fact that I've received neither email nor other correspondence from Wyndham?


CO skier said:


> The number of recent 1,0000,000+ points contracts recently listed on Ebay suggest that at least a few megarenters have already concluded that the answer to this question is, "no" or it will not be sufficently profitable to do so.



How many points is that?


----------



## chapjim

HitchHiker71 said:


> Yes - because the _intent _of a commercial business is very different than the _intent _of an individual owner booking vacations for personal use.



I think you're getting carried away with the intent thing.  We don't all think that intent matters, despite your assurances that it does.


----------



## Cyrus24

chapjim said:


> How should I take the fact that I've received neither email nor other correspondence from Wyndham?


CONGRATS!!!!  You are NOT a MegaRenter!!!   At least, not today.


----------



## chapjim

Braindead said:


> Mega renters create a lot availability for THEMSELVES in the 60 day discount & upgrade window.
> Anything not rented is cancelled but that doesn’t mean that they don’t try catching that availability coming back with discounts & upgrades.
> By snatching that cancelled reservation they put a renter on it then go cancel a rented reservation trying to catch it when it comes. Repeat -repeat-repeat-etc.
> A little different twist on the old cancel rebook, but don’t kid yourself it’s happening a lot.



It's happening as often as I can get it to work.  It works very rarely for prime weeks.  Works a lot when I'm bottom feeding.  Those are the 2BR units that I list on LMR that someone complained were being priced too low!

If I cancel a 4BR Presidential for Easter Week at 60 days, I'll never see it again.  It will be someone's upgrade but my experience is I won't see the 2BR or 3BR unit that it was upgraded from.  What I might see is a 1BR Deluxe unit -- what is left after one or more upgrades.  It's like entropy only in the timeshare business instead of thermodynamics.

The only thing I expect to get when I cancel the 4BR Presidential unit is a lot of points I can use to go bottom feeding later that spring and summer.


----------



## chapjim

Cyrus24 said:


> CONGRATS!!!!  You are NOT a MegaRenter!!!   At least, not today.



Don't tell Dominic that.  He thinks I am.


----------



## Braindead

dgalati said:


> Unfortunately we all just can't have our way.


OMG can you understand what you read at all? Evidently you need to read my post again, please notice the examples to help you understand.



dgalati said:


> You have any sorrow for the count less owners that were sold up to VIP on the premise of renting to cover maintenance fees?


I’m one of those so OMG again!! May not be the reason I bought up VIP-PR but I heard that sales pitch loud & clear
You need to suspend yourself for a month & read what you’ve been posting. Let it sink in on how ridiculous your post are


----------



## HitchHiker71

chapjim said:


> How should I take the fact that I've received neither email nor other correspondence from Wyndham?



I would count your blessings that you didn't receive a formal cease and desist letter then, as whatever you are doing doesn't qualify based upon whatever unknown thresholds were used to define MR activity - at least for now.  Doesn't mean that might not change in the future - there could be multiple waves planned.  We really don't know either way - nor will Wyndham ever share such confidential information with anyone publicly - given it impacts only a very small minority of the ownership base as previously covered.


----------



## dgalati

chapjim said:


> Don't tell Dominic that.  He thinks I am.


 I always thought of you as a bottom feeder picking up the dregs no one else wanted. But you did have many adds for rentals which Wyndham may have noticed.


----------



## dgalati

HitchHiker71 said:


> I would count your blessings that you didn't receive a formal cease and desist letter then, as whatever you are doing doesn't qualify based upon whatever unknown thresholds were used to define MR activity - at least for now.  Doesn't mean that might not change in the future - there could be multiple waves planned.  We really don't know either way - nor will Wyndham ever share such confidential information with anyone publicly - given it impacts only a very small minority of the ownership base as previously covered.


Loose lips sink ships! @chapjim is *Far from lying* low, he became more outspoken than ever. I suggest to him keep quiet, keep out of sight, avoid publicity and keep yourself to yourself.


----------



## Ty1on

dgalati said:


> Loose lips sink ships! @chapjim is *Far from lying* low, he became more outspoken than ever. I suggest to him keep quiet, keep out of sight, avoid publicity and keep yourself to yourself.



You're one seriously strange dude.


----------



## dgalati

Braindead said:


> OMG can you understand what you read at all? Evidently you need to read my post again, please notice the examples to help you understand.
> 
> 
> I’m one of those so OMG again!! May not be the reason I bought up VIP-PR but I heard that sales pitch loud & clear
> You need to suspend yourself for a month & read what you’ve been posting. Let it sink in on how ridiculous your post are


I read all your posts when you were taking advise on working the system and loopholes from MR. Mardi Gras.  Man did you flip on him!


----------



## dgalati

Ty1on said:


> You're one seriously strange dude.


Whats your angle on working the system? No shame in coming clean.


----------



## CO skier

CO skier said:


> The number of recent 1,0000,000+ points contracts recently listed on Ebay ...





chapjim said:


> How many points is that?


I have seen the number used only once before -- in a Wyndham owner update.   I think it is called a "VIPplex" and roughly equivalent to 1 times 10 raised to the 6th power, but don't quote me on that.  Anyone knows how those salespeople are alway adding a little something to make it bigger and better.  In this case, I think an extra zero was added.


----------



## T-Dot-Traveller

Cyrus24 said:


> Some will leave, some will stay, and others may come in to fill the void.  It's like me and my little resale contract.  Do I keep it and deal with the hassle or just give it back.



As a creative lemonade from lemons  thought - for your hypothetical ( mini ) MR who is thinking of staying and waiting for the dust to settle.
Keep 6 million points = MF of approx. $40,000
If said mini MR  could rent their house for $3300 per month  They could spend the next 52 weeks at a Wyndham resort at a weekly points cost of 115,000 .


----------



## T-Dot-Traveller

BingoBangoBongo said:


> Human behavior, especially finance related can be interesting at times.  I have a small building near my house that has hosted at least 10 different pizza operations in the past 25 years.  Each new owner thinks they have the secret recipe, but fail to realize that the location is awful.  Apparently the pizza guys have finally thrown in the towel and it now hosts a Creole type takeout place that never has any cars in the tiny parking lot every time I pass by.  Some people are driven by the opportunity that in reality isn't there.



I agree with your premise - BUT
Maybe the new takeout place is a cover for something else .....
( do bookies still take phone calls ? )


----------



## troy12n

T-Dot-Traveller said:


> As a creativel lemonade from lemons  thought - for your hypothetical ( mini ) MR who is thinking of staying and waiting for the dust to settle.
> Keep 6 million points = MF of approx. $40,000
> If said mini MR  could rent their house for $3300 per month  They could spend the next 52 weeks at a Wyndham resort at a weekly points cost of 115,000 .




That's definitely a money losing proposition... Not too many people spend 40 grand annually on a mortgage and most people also can't rent their homes for $3300/mo.

Those that do, are probably well enough off that there's no way they are getting involved in something like renting timeshares in the first place.

I've read a couple of the threads here and some posts elsewhere from people who lived full time in timeshares. Most used a combination of Wyndham (using VIPP discounts inside 60 days), but most of their stays were on exchanges. It's interesting to think of the lifestyle, but to make it work would require chasing deals and off-season stays, bonus time, last calls and other gimmicks which will require a lot of driving from location to location and likely staying in some pretty sub-par timeshares in off-season.

Also requires either being retired, or a 100% remote work job. Which puts you at the mercy of sometimes sketchy resort wifi and situations where cell service is nonexistent.


----------



## CO skier

T-Dot-Traveller said:


> As a creativel lemonade from lemons  thought - for your hypothetical ( mini ) MR who is thinking of staying and waiting for the dust to settle.
> Keep 6 million points = MF of approx. $40,000
> If said mini MR  could rent their house for $3300 per month  They could spend the next 52 weeks at a Wyndham resort at a weekly points cost of 115,000 .


While theoretically and mathematically correct, it is in practice, nonsensical.  Wyndham landlords want to run their business from their homes, not stay in Wyndham units 52 weeks out of the year.  In some (many?) cases not stay in a Wyndham unit ... ever.


----------



## BingoBangoBongo

T-Dot-Traveller said:


> I agree with your premise - BUT
> Maybe the new takeout place is a cover for something else .....
> ( do bookies still take phone calls ? )



My wife is convinced a different restaurant has the gambling covered.  Usually a lot of cars in the parking lot, hardly anyone eating in the dining room and a mysterious room to the right as you enter.  If the pizza/creole place is a cover for anything, it‘s gotta be a sleep clinic


----------



## rickandcindy23

troy12n said:


> That's definitely a money losing proposition... Not too many people spend 40 grand annually on a mortgage and most people also can't rent their homes for $3300/mo.
> 
> Those that do, are probably well enough off that there's no way they are getting involved in something like renting timeshares in the first place.
> 
> I've read a couple of the threads here and some posts elsewhere from people who lived full time in timeshares. Most used a combination of Wyndham (using VIPP discounts inside 60 days), but most of their stays were on exchanges. It's interesting to think of the lifestyle, but to make it work would require chasing deals and off-season stays, bonus time, last calls and other gimmicks which will require a lot of driving from location to location and likely staying in some pretty sub-par timeshares in off-season.
> 
> Also requires either being retired, or a 100% remote work job. Which puts you at the mercy of sometimes sketchy resort wifi and situations where cell service is nonexistent.


We have cousins who operate an Airbnb house in Sinclair, WY, and they net $4,000 per month.  It's Wyoming, so no rules stop them from renting their house out to people traveling through.  My aunt has a small little apartment in the back of her house that she nets $1,200/ month, and it's about 500 SF.  Very compact, cute little apartment with a nice little kitchen in Rawlins, WY.  She uses Airbnb.  

My relatives are very smart people.  Who would think that these places would attract so many people?  Rawlins doesn't seem like a vacation spot, until you are there for an overnight stay and see deer roaming all over town.  It's just such a quiet area, which is why the hotels are very full all summer.


----------



## rickandcindy23

I think you can buy a decent older house for under $60K even still in Wyoming.  Fix it up really fancy like my cousin did, and you have a little business that more than pays you back.  

I found this while looking for a quote I have often heard but still cannot find:

*A dissatisfied customer will tell between 9-15 people about their experience. Around 13% of dissatisfied customers tell more than 20 people. *_*–* White House Office of Consumer Affairs._


----------



## HitchHiker71

rickandcindy23 said:


> We have cousins who operate an Airbnb house in Sinclair, WY, and they net $4,000 per month.  It's Wyoming, so no rules stop them from renting their house out to people traveling through.  My aunt has a small little apartment in the back of her house that she nets $1,200/ month, and it's about 500 SF.  Very compact, cute little apartment with a nice little kitchen in Rawlins, WY.  She uses Airbnb.
> 
> My relatives are very smart people.  Who would think that these places would attract so many people?  Rawlins doesn't seem like a vacation spot, until you are there for an overnight stay and see deer roaming all over town.  It's just such a quiet area, which is why the hotels are very full all summer.



I would surmise that due to the pandemic - places like this in Wyoming would be more popular now than ever before since many folks are migrating away from densely populated urban areas toward suburban or even rural areas.


----------



## VacayKat

HitchHiker71 said:


> I would surmise that due to the pandemic - places like this in Wyoming would be more popular now than ever before since many folks are migrating away from densely populated urban areas toward suburban or even rural areas.


Also yellowstone, tetons and buffalo!


----------



## troy12n

rickandcindy23 said:


> We have cousins who operate an Airbnb house in Sinclair, WY, and they net $4,000 per month.  It's Wyoming, so no rules stop them from renting their house out to people traveling through.  My aunt has a small little apartment in the back of her house that she nets $1,200/ month, and it's about 500 SF.  Very compact, cute little apartment with a nice little kitchen in Rawlins, WY.  She uses Airbnb.



When I was thinking about renting homes, I was thinking a long term/yearly lease type situation, not an AirBNB type thing. I can see how you could make 3 grand doing that in some markets. 

I've been to Rawlins, WY and wouldn't have thought there would be much market at all for AirBNB there to be honest. I like the area, but winters are brutal, and the wind, seemingly all the time. Did some consulting work for a railroad contractor some years ago that did a bit of work for the Union Pacific between Cheyenne, WY and Ogden, UT and it goes right through Rawlins.


----------



## 55plus

When I was in the Air Force I flew for an FOB on my days off. I use to pick up aircraft in Hutchinson, KS and ferry them. Delivered a few to Harvey Field in Rawlins, WY. Pretty desolate in those parts. Density altitude caused a lot of crashes in Wyoming. Inexperienced pilots and too much fuel on a hot day will do it everytime.


----------



## VacayKat

55plus said:


> When I was in the Air Force I flew for an FOB on my days off. I use to pick up aircraft in Hutchinson, KS and ferry them. Delivered a few to Harvey Field in Rawlins, WY. Pretty desolate in those parts. Density altitude caused a lot of crashes in Wyoming. Inexperienced pilots and too much fuel on a hot day will do it everytime.


Lol, so also the inexperienced pilots crashing will need rooms to rent! Untapped customers there!


----------



## 55plus

Sometimes they end up in the hospital or morgue.


----------



## troy12n

55plus said:


> When I was in the Air Force I flew for an FOB on my days off. I use to pick up aircraft in Hutchinson, KS and ferry them. Delivered a few to Harvey Field in Rawlins, WY. Pretty desolate in those parts. Density altitude caused a lot of crashes in Wyoming. Inexperienced pilots and too much fuel on a hot day will do it everytime.



Is that the airport that is literally up on top of a mountain plain to the South and East of Rawlins?


----------



## troy12n

Actually that airport I was thinking of was near Rock Springs, WY, not Rawlins


----------



## 55plus

troy12n said:


> Is that the airport that is literally up on top of a mountain plain to the South and East of Rawlins?


If I recall, it's N to NE of the city. I know it's on the north side of I-80.


----------



## 55plus

Rock Springs Airport is east of the city.


----------



## troy12n

55plus said:


> Rock Springs Airport is east of the city.



Rock Springs is the one I was thinking of. I wouldn't want to fly out of that one. Short, high, hot in the summer.


----------



## chapjim

HitchHiker71 said:


> I would count your blessings that you didn't receive a formal cease and desist letter then, as whatever you are doing doesn't qualify based upon whatever unknown thresholds were used to define MR activity - at least for now.  Doesn't mean that might not change in the future - there could be multiple waves planned.  We really don't know either way - nor will Wyndham ever share such confidential information with anyone publicly - given it impacts only a very small minority of the ownership base as previously covered.



I was one of many who thanked you and Richelle for your efforts on behalf of the Wyndham Forum.  I stand by that.

However, it seems you've taken on the mantle of Emperor of the Forum and appointed yourself judge, jury, and executioner in addition to having the gift of clairvoyance.  Out with the old!  In with the new!  

In other words, you're getting carried away with yourself.


----------



## dgalati

chapjim said:


> I was one of many who thanked you and Richelle for your efforts on behalf of the Wyndham Forum.  I stand by that.
> 
> However, it seems you've taken on the mantle of Emperor of the Forum and appointed yourself judge, jury, and executioner in addition to having the gift of clairvoyance.  Out with the old!  In with the new!
> 
> In other words, you're getting carried away with yourself.


Sorry Jim you had your run at working the system to your advantage  but it would be easier if you faced the reality that the status quo is over. @HitchHiker71 thank you and @Richelle for everything you have done to help level the playing field for all owners to book for personal use!


----------



## am1

dgalati said:


> Sorry Jim you had your run at working the system to your advantage  but it would be easier if you faced the reality that the status quo is over. @HitchHiker71 thank you and @Richelle for everything you have done to help level the playing field for all owners to book for personal use!


Someone will always find away to get the best reservations at the lowest price and rent them out of they choose.  

At the moment just need a few platinum accounts that you own and then find other owners that want you to manage their accounts.  I use to rent points from other owners for cheaper then the guest confirmation would be.  I think 2 nights at Skyline Tower for New Years during the week was 10 500 points. I would pay them $5.5 or $6/1000 or so and would avoid the 10 night limit per account and have the room rented for $3 or $400.  I also did the 3 bedroom and 4 bedroom presidential units for the same amount of points but would keep them in my accounts.

Wyndham is eliminating the competition so prices will rise.


----------



## dgalati

am1 said:


> Someone will always find away to get the best reservations at the lowest price and rent them out of they choose.
> 
> At the moment just need a few platinum accounts that you own and then find other owners that want you to manage their accounts.  I use to rent points from other owners for cheaper then the guest confirmation would be.  I think 2 nights at Skyline Tower for New Years during the week was 10 500 points. I would pay them $5.5 or $6/1000 or so and would avoid the 10 night limit per account and have the room rented for $3 or $400.  I also did the 3 bedroom and 4 bedroom presidential units for the same amount of points but would keep them in my accounts.
> 
> Wyndham is eliminating the competition so prices will rise.


Not very Likely. Wyndham sold millions of points owners can not use for personal use. This should keep prices low. Supply and demand sets the price low.


----------



## HitchHiker71

chapjim said:


> I was one of many who thanked you and Richelle for your efforts on behalf of the Wyndham Forum. I stand by that.
> 
> However, it seems you've taken on the mantle of Emperor of the Forum and appointed yourself judge, jury, and executioner in addition to having the gift of clairvoyance. Out with the old! In with the new!
> 
> In other words, you're getting carried away with yourself.



If that is how I’m coming across then all I can say is it’s not my intention. I don’t speak on behalf of Wyndham or anyone else other than myself. I do often have strong opinions and my personality leans heavily toward intuition and judgment styles (INTJ) so I’m not at all surprised to see this characterization by you and/or others. I also happen to have a matter of fact style that can sometimes portray statements made as somewhat factual when what I’m stating is really just my personal observations when connecting the dots so to speak. I do try to avoid this by actually stating that I’m making a factual statement, but I’m not perfect and it is sometimes difficult to remember to differentiate myself in this respect when on public forums like TUG.  I am who I am at the end of the day. You be you - I will be me. 

I do feel that there’s a transition in play both within Wyndham and here on TUG as well. We are all attempting to navigate this transition together. However I can be of assistance - that’s my goal. Work with TUG Wyndham owners and work with Wyndham to improve ownership experiences for the majority of owners. 

The inherent difficulty with this thread is that MRs don’t represent the majority - so if it seems like I’m coming across as somewhat judgmental toward this extremely small minority of the ownership base - that is feasible despite my best efforts to avoid doing so. I’ve said exactly that on other threads as well. With respect to this point - thanks for bringing this to my attention - it is most appreciated. I will endeavor to do better. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Eric B

HitchHiker71 said:


> If that is how I’m coming across then all I can say is it’s not my intention. I don’t speak on behalf of Wyndham or anyone else other than myself. I do often have strong opinions and my personality leans heavily toward intuition and judgment styles (INTJ) so I’m not at all surprised to see this characterization by you and/or others. I also happen to have a matter of fact style that can sometimes portray definitively when what I’m stating is just my personal observations when connecting the dots so to speak. I am who I am at the end of the day. You be you - I will be me.
> 
> I do feel that there’s a transition in play both within Wyndham and here on TUG as well. We are all attempting to navigate this transition together. However I can be of assistance - that’s my goal. Work with TUG Wyndham owners and work with Wyndham to improve ownership experiences for the majority of owners.
> 
> The inherent difficulty with this thread is that MRs don’t represent the majority - so if it seems like I’m coming across as somewhat judgmental toward this extremely small minority of the ownership base - that is feasible despite my best efforts to avoid doing so. I’ve said exactly that on other threads as well. With respect to this point - thanks for bringing this to my attention - it is most appreciated. I will endeavor to do better.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Not all that surprising; I came up IXTJ the last several times I got stuck taking Meyers-Briggs.  Bear in mind it reveals personality preferences, not personalities.


----------



## HitchHiker71

Eric B said:


> Not all that surprising; I came up IXTJ the last several times I got stuck taking Meyers-Briggs. Bear in mind it reveals personality preferences, not personalities.



Curious did you mean ISTJ? Or do you straddle the N/S line and that’s what X signifies? I’ve used the MB system for many years for team building exercises along with the DiSC system. INTJs account for roughly 3% of the population so I know I’m an oddball from the outset. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Eric B

Straddle


----------



## T-Dot-Traveller

HitchHiker71 said:


> Curious did you mean ISTJ? Or do you straddle the N/S line and that’s what X signifies? I’ve used the MB system for many years for team building exercises along with the DiSC system. INTJs account for roughly 3% of the population so I know I’m an oddball from the outset.
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk





Eric B said:


> Straddle



sound's like this could be  a good thing if you want TS reservations at peak demand times.


----------



## Rolltydr

chapjim said:


> I was one of many who thanked you and Richelle for your efforts on behalf of the Wyndham Forum.  I stand by that.
> 
> However, it seems you've taken on the mantle of Emperor of the Forum and appointed yourself judge, jury, and executioner in addition to having the gift of clairvoyance.  Out with the old!  In with the new!
> 
> In other words, you're getting carried away with yourself.


Well, I appreciate @HitchHiker71 and @Richelle efforts on behalf of most Wyndham owners, not just the megarenters and their supporters here on TUG. I find their actual knowledge of the system, and Wyndham contacts, refreshing and extremely helpful. They actually try to accomplish positive results for us instead of those that just bitch about how terrible Wyndham is, while breaking every rule they can get away with. 

Your post is ridiculous and you sound like a petulant politician who the voters kicked out of office!


----------



## HitchHiker71

T-Dot-Traveller said:


> sound's like this could be a good thing if you want TS reservations at peak demand times.



Complex systems fascinate me on multiple levels. Probably why owning a timeshare works well for me and my family. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## VacayKat

HitchHiker71 said:


> Curious did you mean ISTJ? Or do you straddle the N/S line and that’s what X signifies? I’ve used the MB system for many years for team building exercises along with the DiSC system. INTJs account for roughly 3% of the population so I know I’m an oddball from the outset.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Hahah- ok so this is why I get you some. I’m primarily an ENTJ, though as I age the J is less obvious.

that’s right - let us take this thread on another tangent!


----------



## troy12n

Rolltydr said:


> Your post is ridiculous and you sound like a petulant politician who the voters kicked out of office!



Nailed it...


----------



## am1

dgalati said:


> Not very Likely. Wyndham sold millions of points owners can not use for personal use. This should keep prices low. Supply and demand sets the price low.



Rentals prices will rise.  The spread between using an owners VIPP account and rentals prices will increase. A small time VIPP owner cannot command a high price or have a list of clients.  But a broker can easily do that.   The new megarenter will be using other VIPP accounts more then before.  A direct cause of Wyndham no longer giving VIP benefits to resale accounts.  I dabbled in booking in others account but I had hundreds of millions of my own points in my accounts.  Never got an exact total.


----------



## troy12n

am1 said:


> Rentals prices will rise.  The spread between using an owners VIPP account and rentals prices will increase. A small time VIPP owner cannot command a high price or have a list of clients.  But a broker can easily do that.   The new megarenter will be using other VIPP accounts more then before.  A direct cause of Wyndham no longer giving VIP benefits to resale accounts.  I dabbled in booking in others account but *I had hundreds of millions of my own points in my accounts*.  Never got an exact total.



Hundreds of millions of points, lol... lots of "friends and family". Hard to see why Wyndham wants rid of people like you. 

Also, "rental prices will rise" is not a concern for owners. Who cares. Irrelevant.


----------



## Richelle

Mega Renter John Doe:  The Wyndham sales guy said I could rent my points, so I have a right to rent them!

Also Mega Renter John Doe:  If a Wyndham sales guy's lips are moving, they are lying.

True story.


----------



## Richelle

buckor said:


> Here’s an honest question to the rental business scenario: if Wyndham truly is against owners renting their points, should owners be allowed to rent via Extra Holidays?
> 
> IMO, this is where Wyndham loses some of its traction: “no, you cannot rent unless you rent through us allowing us to earn a commission.” There cannot be a double standard. Either renting is okay, or it’s not.
> 
> I have been a part of many “updates” where the sales person used renting “extra” points to cover MFs as a sales tactic. We all know what the official position of Wyndham is, however, when a sales person contradicts that official position and encourages you to make reservations at high demand resorts and list them for rent on EH, isn’t that a conflict of interest, at a minimum?
> 
> I am enjoying reading everyone’s thoughts on this. I will be sticking around to see what everyone has to say.
> 
> Blessings!



Wyndham never said they are not ok with renting.  Wyndham is ok with the "occasional" rental.  I've been told that by someone who is higher up and NOT in sales.  What they are not ok with, is the level of renting they deem as megarenting.  I don't know what those measurements are, but I would imagine hundreds of guest certificates or thousands of entries in a single year in their transaction history might trigger a red flag.  The occasional rental is what EH is meant for.  Despite what some salespeople may have said, it was never meant to be a way to profit from your timeshare.   So there is no double standard in that regard.  One can argue their profiting from EH rentals is a double standard, but the difference is, EH is a service to the owner.  Mega renting doesn't service the owner.  It services the megarenters and NON-owners.



55plus said:


> Thanks to Wyndham enforcing the policy, I guess I don't have to worry about that anymore



I'm sorry to say that won't be the case.  As Ron so aptly pointed out years ago, there are 10 more people waiting for that same reservation he just booked.  I don't know that it is actually 10, but his point was that even if you take out the mega renters, there will still be more demand than supply for weeks like bike week or Mardi Gras.  You will still need to be up at 12 am to have the best shot at getting that two-bedroom.  With that said, at least it's 5 owners getting those 5 rooms, instead of one owner renting five rooms to non-owners for profit.


----------



## am1

troy12n said:


> Hundreds of millions of points, lol... lots of "friends and family". Hard to see why Wyndham wants rid of people like you.
> 
> Also, "rental prices will rise" is not a concern for owners. Who cares. Irrelevant.


No a few friends and family and lots of happy renters.  I was always gotten rid of.


----------



## Richelle

paxsarah said:


> Yes, that's what I said. I understand that there will be more "regular" owners in total, as some number of megarenters will be replaced by some (presumably much greater) number of "regular" owners. Thus, a greater number of "regular" owners will be able to book reservations. However, I'm still up against the same total number of points chasing the same amount of availability, so I don't see how any existing current "regular" owner is any better off once we've replaced some megarenters with regular owners. In fact, because we can assume each megarenter is replaced by numerous regular owners, for instance at 13 months, instead of one megarenter trying to snatch up 10 reservations at a lucrative location but who has to do so consecutively, I'm up against multiple regular owners who can all book right at midnight simultaneously.
> 
> So again, I don't see how I, as an individual existing regular owner, gets any benefit in terms of availability once the points from megarenters have made their way into new "regular" owner hands.


I'm still catching up on this thread, so if this point was already made, I apologize.  There will always be more demand than supply on some of these weeks.  There is no arguing that.  However, one megarenter may have used millions of points on prime season reservations. When they dump those millions of points on the resale market, the new owners won't be booking the same exact rooms the mega renter did. Those millions of points would be used on reservations booked across multiple resorts throughout the year.  So some might be booking low season and some might book high season.  That leaves more prime inventory available to owners who are looking for it.  It will not fix the supply problem, but it will mean more owners that actually want that prime week has the ability to book it, because you don't have one mega renter taking multiple rooms.


----------



## paxsarah

Richelle said:


> I'm still catching up on this thread, so if this point was already made, I apologize.  There will always be more demand than supply on some of these weeks.  There is no arguing that.  However, one megarenter may have used millions of points on prime season reservations. When they dump those millions of points on the resale market, the new owners won't be booking the same exact rooms the mega renter did. Those millions of points would be used on reservations booked across multiple resorts throughout the year.  So some might be booking low season and some might book high season.  That leaves more prime inventory available to owners who are looking for it.  It will not fix the supply problem, but it will mean more owners that actually want that prime week has the ability to book it, because you don't have one mega renter taking multiple rooms.


I'm not sure I'm completely sold on this because it depends on assumptions about how megarenters book. I kind of think I'm a regular owner, so I'm more likely to compete against other regular owners like me in terms of booking patterns rather than a megarenter, but who can say? But as Ron has long said, when he was a megarenter he might have had the goal of booking 10 units with ARP or at 10 months, but he had to do so consecutively, one after the other. If that megarenter was replaced with 10 or 25 or 50 regular owners, now I'm against multiple regular owners all trying to book the second it opens. So I'm not convinced I'm better or worse off with that replacement.

Further along in my saga of understanding  you'll find I came to the realization that if this change helps me (as an individual existing regular owner) at all, it's that with many new "regular" owners replacing a much smaller number of megarenters, that some of the new regular owners are going to be like the people who join the gym but never use it. Some of the new owners are going to flake on their ownership and never or rarely book. (Whereas regardless of their patterns, I think we can assume megarenters use very close to every single point.) And that's where real new availability comes from - other people not using their owned points.


----------



## markb53

markb53 said:


> I am not a mega renter. I am also not a VIP. I am a regular owner. I have 182k CWA I purchased from Wyndham and I also have a Panama City Beach 210k EOY-E that I purchased on the resale market in order to reduce my average point cost. I have been an owner for over 10 years. I have never had a problem getting reservations I want for the date I need. I never use ARP. I generally book at 10 months. But sometimes at 4 to 5 months. I have never tried to get bike week at Daytona or Mardi Gras at New Orleans so maybe that’s why I havev’t had a problem. I have booked a 3BR presidential at Bali Hai over Christmas at 10 months. I have stayed at over 20 different resorts during prime weeks, since until recently I could only travel during school holidays. I have no particular feelings one way or the other about the mega renters in general since it doesn’t seem like they have had any effect on my ability to  use my points when I want and were I want. When I first purchased from Wyndham I was pretty upset when I discovered the lies I was told. And I have to say that it was finding TUG back in 2011 and reading the posts by Ron and others that calmed me down and showed my how to use what I purchased including how to buy some resale points to make my ownership more useful.
> 
> Just my 2 cents.



I know I’m quoting my own post but I just wanted to add that I do feel that what wyndham is doing will help non MR owners. There should be more availability at 10 months for those of us who book at 10 months. For the most popular resorts at popular dates, I will be surprised if it changes at all. At those resort all the good stuff will still be gone at 10 month by 1:00AMET. Someone who gets on the computer at 7:00AM the next morning will still not find what they want. I hope I am wrong about that. The other thing that should improve is the availability at 60 days since there will be fewer VIP and probably no Mega-Renters grabbing inventory. Which will be good for the rest of us.


----------



## VacayKat

Richelle said:


> I'm still catching up on this thread, so if this point was already made, I apologize.  There will always be more demand than supply on some of these weeks.  There is no arguing that.  However, one megarenter may have used millions of points on prime season reservations. When they dump those millions of points on the resale market, the new owners won't be booking the same exact rooms the mega renter did. Those millions of points would be used on reservations booked across multiple resorts throughout the year.  So some might be booking low season and some might book high season.  That leaves more prime inventory available to owners who are looking for it.  It will not fix the supply problem, but it will mean more owners that actually want that prime week has the ability to book it, because you don't have one mega renter taking multiple rooms.


While I get this theory, without knowing exactly where the megarenters were booking and for what time frames, it is hard to say for sure one way or the other. For e.g. in 2020 I had a 2-bed BC rental that upgraded for spring break and I can not imagine I booked that at 10 months- probably 6ish, at most 8. I would have presumed that time to be high on rental demand and megarenters snapping it all up so no one could get it after the 10 month mark.
Personally, I would presume 10 regular owners to be more competition for the resorts I actually want to book at prime times because I’m not going where EVERYONE else is going to be. Which makes my reservation chances harder and my vacations more crowded.



markb53 said:


> I know I’m quoting my own post but I just wanted to add that I do feel that what wyndham is doing will help non MR owners. There should be more availability at 10 months for those of us who book at 10 months. For the most popular resorts at popular dates, I will be surprised if it changes at all. At those resort all the good stuff will still be gone at 10 month by 1:00AMET. Someone who gets on the computer at 7:00AM the next morning will still not find what they want. I hope I am wrong about that. The other thing that should improve is the availability at 60 days since there will be fewer VIP and probably no Mega-Renters grabbing inventory. Which will be good for the rest of us.


Given Wyndham can also grab that inventory at 60 days, not so sure about that. If they can rent it versus giving discounts on it - they are going to rent it. Capitalism 101 right there.


----------



## paxsarah

markb53 said:


> The other thing that should improve is the availability at 60 days since there will be fewer VIP and probably no Mega-Renters grabbing inventory.


If I had to guess, I'd say it's a similar number of VIPs (in terms of number of people), but fewer points that those individuals will be using inside 60 days. (Even if your average VIP with a few resale contracts keeps them, there's no longer any reason for them to use those resale points specifically inside 60 days.)


----------



## paxsarah

VacayKat said:


> If they can rent it versus giving discounts on it - they are going to rent it.


They have always had the capability to do this and they generally haven't (at least such that we noticed - people are still booking and getting discounts inside 60 days). They certainly could change and decide to do this in the future, but I just don't know _what_ we expect to happen that would make them make that change.


----------



## VacayKat

paxsarah said:


> They have always had the capability to do this and they generally haven't (at least such that we noticed - people are still booking and getting discounts inside 60 days). They certainly could change and decide to do this in the future, but I just don't know _what_ we expect to happen that would make them make that change.


Yes, but I would guess not everyone who could have are - if they take 30% of the leftovers, and most of the larger units then that means fewer upgrades and fewer options for discounts on. Did not say they took it all.


----------



## rickandcindy23

I wonder if Wyndham would just take back everything, including our platinum membership.  I am actually angry enough to give it all back, but I really didn't want to dump the platinum membership initially.  Now I am thinking I don't want any part of this company.  My life would be fine without Wyndham.


----------



## VacayKat

paxsarah said:


> If I had to guess, I'd say it's a similar number of VIPs (in terms of number of people), but fewer points that those individuals will be using inside 60 days. (Even if your average VIP with a few resale contracts keeps them, there's no longer any reason for them to use those resale points specifically inside 60 days.)


I agree in premise, but personally my approach would be to maximize all my vip points in the discount window so I don’t feel the resale loss and use resale for times I know won’t get upgrade or be available in 60 day window. 
For e.g. I’d blow all my resale (and some vip) on my honolulu 10 days in August that I need to drop a kid at college. It’s a higher demand time and a long reservation - upgrade unlikely and no way it would be available within 60 days. But you cn be sure that for the rest of my reservations I’m watching all the other resort availability closely and even considering changing resorts if I find something cheaper to save points in the 60 day window. [not so much this year, but in general]
Essentially given VIP perk loss to the resale points, I think VIP will be looking to maximize their benefits on the vip-eligible, which may in fact make discounts more competitive. Remains to be seen though.


----------



## VacayKat

rickandcindy23 said:


> I wonder if Wyndham would just take back everything, including our platinum membership.  I am actually angry enough to give it all back, but I really didn't want to dump the platinum membership initially.  Now I am thinking I don't want any part of this company.  My life would be fine without Wyndham.


My points are nowhere near yours but even though the changes impact me little that was my exact response to the announcement. I just want them to buy me out and be done with them. 
They might just do that for you - especially if they think you will go quietly.


----------



## Rolltydr

paxsarah said:


> If that megarenter was replaced with 10 or 25 or 50 regular owners, now I'm against multiple regular owners all trying to book the second it opens. So I'm not convinced I'm better or worse off with that replacement.


I have to disagree with your premise. I do not believe the vast majority of “regular owners” will be staying up until wee hours of the morning 10-13 months out to book a vacation for their family. Most owners are busy with jobs and can’t plan that far ahead. IMHO, we’ll see more availability for most locations and dates. Obviously, there are high demand locations and dates that will still be tough to get 5-6 months out and the 3-4 bedrooms are always going to be hard because there are so few of them, relatively speaking. However, I believe enforcing the rules will allow more “regular owners” to enjoy their timeshares than is currently possible due to the impact mega-renters have on availability.


----------



## Eric B

Rolltydr said:


> I have to disagree with your premise. I do not believe the vast majority of “regular owners” will be staying up until wee hours of the morning 10-13 months out to book a vacation for their family. Most owners are busy with jobs and can’t plan that far ahead. IMHO, we’ll see more availability for most locations and dates. Obviously, there are high demand locations and dates that will still be tough to get 5-6 months out and the 3-4 bedrooms are always going to be hard because there are so few of them, relatively speaking. However, I believe enforcing the rules will allow more “regular owners” to enjoy their timeshares than is currently possible due to the impact mega-renters have on availability.



There are quite a few posts about Midnight Eastern Time bookings in other forums where the megarenter issue isn’t a problem (e.g., Vistana).  I’m not sure there’s a good reason to think it would be different in a world without Wyndham megarenters.

Edited to add that it’s only 9 pm for those living on the west coast.


----------



## rickandcindy23

Eric B said:


> There are quite a few posts about Midnight Eastern Time bookings in other forums where the megarenter issue isn’t a problem (e.g., Vistana).  I’m not sure there’s a good reason to think it would be different in a world without Wyndham megarenters.
> 
> Edited to add that it’s only 9 pm for those living on the west coast.


I do grab inventory at SDO at midnight Eastern to get spring training week (we only own one Sheraton Desert Oasis), but I have never, ever grabbed Wyndham at midnight.  I am a person who rents and might even be considered a "mega renter" but that has never been something we do.  Our daughter is tenacious and books within 60 days for discounts and upgrades.  So that is where a regular member might lose inventory.  Plan ahead and problem solved.  If it's there for our daughter, it's there for you.  It takes time.  

Sheraton Broadway Plantation is something I would love to book at midnight, but Vistana hasn't been able to figure out why I cannot book anything online and have to call to make every reservation.  Vistana is calling me today to discuss my issue.  I know what the issue is, I am very clear about it, but they are not.  We own too many weeks to book online.  That is causing the issues.


----------



## am1

rickandcindy23 said:


> I wonder if Wyndham would just take back everything, including our platinum membership.  I am actually angry enough to give it all back, but I really didn't want to dump the platinum membership initially.  Now I am thinking I don't want any part of this company.  My life would be fine without Wyndham.



With that Wyndham wins and no golden parachute.


----------



## tschwa2

am1 said:


> With that Wyndham wins and no golden parachute.


Even without a golden parachute she could probably get the 3 years of usage with no MF's and retain platinum benefits on those points for those years for family (on the deeds) to use for personal use.


----------



## tschwa2

VacayKat said:


> My points are nowhere near yours but even though the changes impact me little that was my exact response to the announcement. I just want them to buy me out and be done with them.
> They might just do that for you - especially if they think you will go quietly.


I doubt there will be any special buy out unless you are willing to threaten and follow through with legal actions.  For most VIP owners regular certified exit/ovations/limited editions or sell independently will be the only options.


----------



## VacayKat

tschwa2 said:


> I doubt there will be any special buy out unless you are willing to threaten and follow through with legal actions.  For most VIP owners regular certified exit/ovations/limited editions or sell independently will be the only options.


My purchase is fresh (relatively) and I own presidential. They’d need to buy me out. But again, I am collateral damage not the intended target, so not sure they would even care about me.


----------



## tschwa2

VacayKat said:


> My purchase is fresh (relatively) and I own presidential. They’d need to buy me out. But again, I am collateral damage not the intended target, so not sure they would even care about me.


I don't think they would care.  Keep what you have and live with the current rules or use certified exit if you can but they won't "pay" to get you out.  This isn't going to be an automatic ticket for anyone to get a settlement just because they don't like the new rules.


----------



## HitchHiker71

tschwa2 said:


> Even without a golden parachute she could probably get the 3 years of usage with no MF's and retain platinum benefits on those points for those years for family (on the deeds) to use for personal use.



If using CE Limited Edition - I’m not sure if VIPP benefits will still apply - perhaps someone else knows better on this point - but I know that you can only make reservations using named account owners - GC usage is not allowed when using CE LE during the three year grace period. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## rickandcindy23

My anger at Wyndham, I just realized this myself, is that I read these posts from owners who blame others for their lack of ability to get vacations they want.  They use mega renters as a scape goat (not just owners, but Wyndham)  It's as though everyone doesn't have the same opportunity for vacations.  You do have the same opportunities.  

TUG posts have been very in the face of those who have rented (and I don't own nearly what some of you might think I own).  Those not on TUG and don't even know about TUG, they are probably just trying to re-group and figure things out for themselves.


----------



## Rolltydr

Mega-renters:  Every VIP owner has the opportunity to book 13 months out as I do and every regular owner at 10 months. Everyone should plan and book at midnight on the first night they can.

Also mega-renters: If I don’t book the units they will sit vacant because nobody else is reserving them.


----------



## Ty1on

Rolltydr said:


> Mega-renters:  Every VIP owner has the opportunity to book 13 months out as I do and every regular owner at 10 months. Everyone should plan and book at midnight on the first night they can.
> 
> Also mega-renters: If I don’t book the units they will sit vacant because nobody else is reserving them.



So that first part is a red herring.  VIPs have an extremely limited number of RARP transactions each year, max 6.  Not even within artillery distance of enough to make a dent as a renter.  After those are used up, VIPs, non-VIPs, and resale owners all are operating within the same constraints.  And yes, everyone should plan and book at midnight at 13 or 10 months for a competitive reservation.  That advice is given here ad nauseum.

At one time, your "also" would show hypocrisy on the part of megarenters, because they reserved highly sought after reservations, then used cancel-rebook to discount those reservations and expand their usable points for more reservations.  However, that exploit has pretty much been destroyed by the way Wyndham handles cancellations now.  Therefore, the words you are putting in the mouths of megarenters in the second phrase is more true than untrue today.


----------



## paxsarah

Anti-megarenters: Megarenters book all of the prime locations and units exactly at 13 months.

Also anti-megarenters: Megarenters have been abusing their VIP benefits by booking tens of millions of points inside 60 days.

I’m pretty sure I’ve seen every possible argument here on all sides over the last few weeks,


----------



## paxsarah

Rolltydr said:


> Also mega-renters: If I don’t book the units they will sit vacant because nobody else is reserving them.


I did a quick forum search on “vacant” (also “empty” for good measure) and I don’t see a statement from any known megarenter that even resembles this sentiment in the last month. I’ve seen plenty of “if it’s available inside 60 days, everyone truly has the same shot at it,” but no assertions that it would remain completely unbooked.


----------



## Eric B

paxsarah said:


> Anti-megarenters: Megarenters book all of the prime locations and units exactly at 13 months.
> 
> Also anti-megarenters: Megarenters have been abusing their VIP benefits by booking tens of millions of points inside 60 days.
> 
> I’m pretty sure I’ve seen every possible argument here on all sides over the last few weeks,



Also anti-megarenters: Megarenters are violating the rules and polices that Wyndham has established but not disclosed by intending to use their ownership the way that the Wyndham sales force told them they should use it before the current leadership team took over and greatly improved the corporate culture at Wyndham.


----------



## paxsarah

Eric B said:


> Also anti-megarenters: Megarenters are violating the rules and polices that Wyndham has established but not disclosed by intending to use their ownership the way that the Wyndham sales force told them they should use it before the current leadership team took over and greatly improved the corporate culture at Wyndham.


Yes.

I’m not here to defend the megarenters. I’m just saying I’ve seen _a lot_ of different takes, not always consistent with one another.


----------



## 55plus

Don't blame the average VIP owners. They didn't cause the problem. We have/had no other choice than to book a discounted reservation at 60 days out. We had no way to pay for housekeeping if they were at a certain VIP level, etc. The only choice they had was wether or not to request an upgrade. Mega renters abused the flaws in the system to the point Wyndham had to do something. So if mega renters want to blame anyone, look on the mirror

Look at it like this: one mega renter booking, let's say 20 large units at Bonnet Creek for over Christmas, times 10 mega renters equals 200 large units that other owners can't book. They are tied up for commerce and unavailable to others. This behavior at other resorts during high demand timeframes, times another 10 mega renters equal, etc. See the problem? 

I'm sorry if some are getting hurt by the changes, but many owners were hurt by the mega renters eating up all the prime inventory. It's that behavior which caused Wyndham to make changes. The changes are needed so owners can use their points for what they are intended, which is personal use, not commerce.


----------



## troy12n

rickandcindy23 said:


> My anger at Wyndham, I just realized this myself, is that I read these posts from *owners who blame others for their lack of ability to get vacations they want*.  They use mega renters as a scape goat (not just owners, but Wyndham)  It's as though everyone doesn't have the same opportunity for vacations.  You do have the same opportunities.
> 
> TUG posts have been very in the face of those who have rented (and I don't own nearly what some of you might think I own).  Those not on TUG and don't even know about TUG, they are probably just trying to re-group and figure things out for themselves.



Come on, you all need to take ownership, collectively, of the damage you have done to "the system"... sticking your head in the sand and ignoring the consequences of your actions isn't helping anything... or anyone

Sorry your business is coming to an end, but you shouldn't have been running it to start with and some of you are in severe denial


----------



## troy12n

paxsarah said:


> Anti-megarenters: Megarenters book all of the prime locations and units exactly at 13 months.
> 
> Also anti-megarenters: Megarenters have been abusing their VIP benefits by booking tens of millions of points inside 60 days.
> 
> I’m pretty sure I’ve seen every possible argument here on all sides over the last few weeks,



Honestly it's more like this: 

Megarenters: I never book at 13/10 months, I only book inside 60 days

Also Megarenters: (bragging) "I booked out all of NOLA for Mardi Gras and GC for thanksgiving and OW for Bike Week" - if you tried to book at 7am, sorry, should have stayed up till midnight like I did

You can't speak out of both sides of your mouth... every single "problem" being addressed by Wyndham right now was caused by Mega Renters. Period. End of Story. 

Some VIP's with resale ownership are collateral damage from Wyndham trying to fix the problem created by you guys. 

I actually don't feel sorry for any mega renters, I do feel sorry for the rest of ownership who has to deal with losing some level of VIP privilege's they had grown accustomed to, even if not explicitly allowed. But the enemy is the mega renter, not Wyndham... 

Anything else is FAKE NEWS


----------



## comicbookman

troy12n said:


> Honestly it's more like this:
> 
> Megarenters: I never book at 13/10 months, I only book inside 60 days
> 
> Also Megarenters: (bragging) "I booked out all of NOLA for Mardi Gras and GC for thanksgiving and OW for Bike Week" - if you tried to book at 7am, sorry, should have stayed up till midnight like I did
> 
> You can't speak out of both sides of your mouth... every single "problem" being addressed by Wyndham right now was caused by Mega Renters. Period. End of Story.
> 
> Some VIP's with resale ownership are collateral damage from Wyndham trying to fix the problem created by you guys.
> 
> I actually don't feel sorry for any mega renters, I do feel sorry for the rest of ownership who has to deal with losing some level of VIP privilege's they had grown accustomed to, even if not explicitly allowed. But the enemy is the mega renter, not Wyndham...
> 
> Anything else is FAKE NEWS



While I have never been a mega renter, I do think the above ignores one simple fact.  The mega renters are also OWNERS.  Just because they have more points than you do and are can generate an income, does not change this simple fact.  Its like saying landlords are responsible for all the problems for home owners.  Mega renters were a Wyndham creation and a Wyndham mistake.  Wyndham was responsible for all the problems being addressed and WYndham is causing the collateral damage.  lets put the blame where it belongs.


----------



## bogey21

rickandcindy23 said:


> Now I am thinking I don't want any part of this company.  My life would be fine without Wyndham.


My way of thinking. Why continue to do business with an entity that (in your opinion) has done you wrong...

George


----------



## HitchHiker71

rickandcindy23 said:


> I wonder if Wyndham would just take back everything, including our platinum membership.  I am actually angry enough to give it all back, but I really didn't want to dump the platinum membership initially.  Now I am thinking I don't want any part of this company.  My life would be fine without Wyndham.



If you don't need it and/or want it - then they might take it all back with CE LE.  That said, I recognize the emotions are running high at this moment - and IME that's never a good time to make big decisions.  You have to be you of course - but I'd recommend you pause for at least 30-60 days and let these changes play out and then revisit the decision point.  A VIPP membership that is fully paid for is certainly worthwhile to someone like me - but it also sounds like you own with quite a few other timeshare systems that you may actually prefer over Wyndham - so I cannot comment with respect to your travel desires and plans in the years ahead.


----------



## troy12n

comicbookman said:


> While I have never been a mega renter, I do think the above ignores one simple fact.  The mega renters are also OWNERS.  Just because they have more points than you do and are can generate an income, does not change this simple fact.  Its like saying landlords are responsible for all the problems for home owners.  Mega renters were a Wyndham creation and a Wyndham mistake.  Wyndham was responsible for all the problems being addressed and WYndham is causing the collateral damage.  lets put the blame where it belongs.



That's an absolutely horrible analogy. There's nothing inherently "against the rules" when a property developer decides to develop an apartment complex vs a residential housing development... 

Developers aren't obliged to "not develop" because it could potentially impact an existing owner's ability to use their property, or perhaps in some way affect someone's potential resale value. That's not a thing. 

Wyndham is a closed system, with rules set by them. It's supposed to be as close to a level playing field as possible, however mega renters manipulate availability by various means to "buy out" entire blocks or weeks of inventory. It's well established, some of them even brag about it.


----------



## Roger830

troy12n said:


> Honestly it's more like this:
> 
> Megarenters: I never book at 13/10 months, I only book inside 60 days
> 
> Also Megarenters: (bragging) "I booked out all of NOLA for Mardi Gras and GC for thanksgiving and OW for Bike Week" - if you tried to book at 7am, sorry, should have stayed up till midnight like I did
> 
> You can't speak out of both sides of your mouth... every single "problem" being addressed by Wyndham right now was caused by Mega Renters. Period. End of Story.
> 
> Some VIP's with resale ownership are collateral damage from Wyndham trying to fix the problem created by you guys.
> 
> I actually don't feel sorry for any mega renters, I do feel sorry for the rest of ownership who has to deal with losing some level of VIP privilege's they had grown accustomed to, even if not explicitly allowed. But the enemy is the mega renter, not Wyndham...
> 
> Anything else is FAKE NEWS



So my take away is if those nasty mega-renters don't book at 60 days it's because they booked at 10 months. Who would have thought?


----------



## HitchHiker71

paxsarah said:


> Yes.
> 
> I’m not here to defend the megarenters. I’m just saying I’ve seen _a lot_ of different takes, not always consistent with one another.



I don't think it's a binary choice - I think it's all true.  I can recall something that Ron said that made a lot of sense to me (putting aside my contention with the commercial use issue), which is to focus in on a couple specific locations and really get to know every minute detail of those locations.  For Ron I know at least one of his focus areas was New Orleans.  He got to know the resort managers, cleaning crews, support staff, pretty much everyone.  I would therefore surmise that other MRs did _not _focus on New Orleans during his ownership tenure - so those MRs had other focus areas.  Some booked up long term inventory right at 13/10 months - as much as possible - and worked the system using specific processes that worked for their use cases and their specialty areas.  Some probably focused on the discount window reservations and shorter term windows - some did both at least while cancel/rebook was around before it came to an end.  My overall point is that the answer is realistically "all of the above" when we add up all of the various uses cases and methods used by the collective MR ownership base.  If we assume that there were multiple methodologies used to consume inventory for commercial use rentals -  then at least _some _of that inventory that will no longer be consumed for rentals will be accessible for personal use - and that's a good thing regardless of the details as to the how/what/when with respect to personal use.


----------



## Rolltydr

“ Just because they have more points than you do and are can generate an income…”

This negates everything else you said in your post because generating an income (running a commercial enterprise ) is against the rules, for any owner. Full. Stop.


----------



## Richelle

paxsarah said:


> Anti-megarenters: Megarenters book all of the prime locations and units exactly at 13 months.
> 
> Also anti-megarenters: Megarenters have been abusing their VIP benefits by booking tens of millions of points inside 60 days.
> 
> I’m pretty sure I’ve seen every possible argument here on all sides over the last few weeks,



Megarenters book both ARP for prime reservations they know they can sell for a profit, and utilize their discount for the rest. Renting a week in four bedroom at Clearwater during April at full point value is rough. Let alone trying to make a profit. A four bedroom presidential at Clearwater over Fourth of July week would fetch a premium and the megarenter can sell it above their cost, even at full point value. So a megarenter would book that in ARP and then try to nab a weekend in a four bedroom presidential some other time in the discount window. The same can be said for bike week. Book the three bedroom in ARP. Then try to nab the one bedrooms in the discount window. I know of someone who made most of their revenue on AirBNB with Daytona bike week, renting one and two bedrooms that popped up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Cyrus24

troy12n said:


> Some VIP's with resale ownership are collateral damage from Wyndham trying to fix the problem created by you guys.


I'm a VIP with a small resale contract and I am collateral damage.   I blame Wyndham!!!!  Please do not attempt to speak for me as I do not blame the MR's.


----------



## Sandi Bo

And here is my take away. 

First and foremost. How did Wyndham allow someone, this year, to own 67 Million points. That is absurd. How is that not complete failure with the responsibility sitting squarely on Wyndham's shoulders? And this one person has been held up as an example multiple times (feels like I've read about them 67 Million times now). I for one do not believe there is nearly the issue that Wyndham would like us to believe. (They probably paid Yvonne to refile a lawsuit so they could utilize the publicity).

Now I'll calm down just a bit, and state my overall thoughts.

This is an unprecedented year. A crazy number of points were forwarded to this year.  

Many owners that typically don't rent, have rented this year -- a year where all owners have more points available than ever.  People that have never rented before are renting, people that typically rent are renting more than ever.   And now, more than ever, people are ready to go on vacation. No one can find reservations, renting (by anyone) has exacerbated that problem. Of course, even without renting, the most popular of destinations would not be available. This would be the only reason I can support the blackout dates. 

To look at anyone's usage this year will be skewed. And what a great opportunity for Wyndham to swoop in, make some pretty major changes, and be sure to publicize to all owners that they are doing it for the good of the common owner. I have no doubt, this is just one more wave, and there will be more, as Wyndham controls/takes back more and more contracts.

My approach to most things for me is to break down and simplify things.  All these different theories and approaches, seem to cater to each individuals needs and make things much more complicated than they need to be.  People want the rules to support specifically how they use the program. Simplistic example, it's okay if I rent 1 or 2 reservations (even during bike week) but if I rent x of them, I'm a megarenter. (Kind of feels like it's okay to pee in the shallow end mentality to me). Wyndham doesn't need anything to systematically support anything. Obviously. If they'd only state things clearly and concisely, the rules would be known. Supporting systematically ideal, but not necessary.

If Wyndham would define clear and concise rules, we wouldn't have these issues. We have them because Wyndham historically has not done well stating or implementing policies or procedures. And here, still, they have not nor does it appear they are going (thus here we are on page 17 of speculation and guessing - and this is one post). 

I'll never understand why Wyndham didn't require separate accounts for VIP versus resale (unless they wanted it that way -- until now). So I'll say it again, it was that way before because that is how Wyndham wanted it. Now the proposed system changes (that we anticipate will occur tonight) will bring that about (in a more complicated manner than not allowing the 2 to comingle, but so be it).  And why would Wyndham ever add millions of points to one account?  Why not limit that?  And limit GCs to what are allowed per account or allow people to call for exceptions, perhaps. Anything beyond that is adding layers of complication no one needs.  If they would have done those 3 things in the 1st place, these conversations would not be necessary.

Thankfully resorts are not involved in determining who should or should not be staying. They are not in the business of cancelling or turning people away. They are in the business of making an exceptional vacation experience and they do that well. The simplest of examples there is that whether or not you attend a sales presentation, your room assignment or resort experience will not be affected (and I have to say in general because there are some resorts known to be managed otherwise, not the topic here).

For me personally, what I did with my account was to make it as easy to use, as possible, for our family. My #1 priority is family usage (something my father paid dearly for). Making the account as self managing as possible was always the goal.  Being able to rent to offset the maintenance was a bonus. Side note - define offset maintenance - am I only supposed to charge my maintenance fees, or can I charge double so my vacations are covered? (Interesting what some think is okay and where lines are being drawn. 

With the new changes, managing for the family will be more of a challenge. But we'll figure it out.


----------



## HitchHiker71

@Sandi Bo excellent post.  While we might be spending some time and effort debating the finer points of ownerships the past week or so here on TUG - the fun really starts tomorrow once the changes have been implemented.  I suspect tomorrow we'll at least pause most of the debating and start identifying website issues where things aren't working as expected - so after this evening - I suspect the MR/PM threads will die down quite a bit as we will likely be consumed with the more practical website matters.  My website spreadsheet stands ready for more regressions/bugs/enhancements folks!


----------



## Sandi Bo

HitchHiker71 said:


> @Sandi Bo excellent post.  While we might be spending some time and effort debating the finer points of ownerships the past week or so here on TUG - the fun really starts tomorrow once the changes have been implemented.  I suspect tomorrow we'll at least pause most of the debating and start identifying website issues where things aren't working as expected - so after this evening - I suspect the MR/PM threads will die down quite a bit as we will likely be consumed with the more practical website matters.  My website spreadsheet stands ready for more regressions/bugs/enhancements folks!


Thank you. I'm on vacation at the moment having a hard time keeping up with all this. Probably for the best. And, honestly, at this time realizing my VIP did nothing for me for my current 400K stay. Who needs VIP for a full point booking of a 4 BR Presidential booked 7 months in advance? Next time I'll be using my resale points for this type stay. Especially since we don't get a newspaper anymore.


----------



## Richelle

VacayKat said:


> While I get this theory, without knowing exactly where the megarenters were booking and for what time frames, it is hard to say for sure one way or the other. For e.g. in 2020 I had a 2-bed BC rental that upgraded for spring break and I can not imagine I booked that at 10 months- probably 6ish, at most 8. I would have presumed that time to be high on rental demand and megarenters snapping it all up so no one could get it after the 10 month mark.
> Personally, I would presume 10 regular owners to be more competition for the resorts I actually want to book at prime times because I’m not going where EVERYONE else is going to be. Which makes my reservation chances harder and my vacations more crowded.
> 
> 
> Given Wyndham can also grab that inventory at 60 days, not so sure about that. If they can rent it versus giving discounts on it - they are going to rent it. Capitalism 101 right there.



1 mega renter books 10 rooms.  Now they cannot, so those 10 rooms are free to go to someone else.  So now you have 10  owners who booked 10 rooms.  That is 9 more people that got bookings because they got rid of one mega renter.  I am not really focusing on one resort or one week.  What I was trying to say was, that instead of those millions of points being concentrated on prime reservations (any prime reservations), they will be used on non-prime reservations as well.  I'm willing to bet the majority of mega renters didn't bother with a low season reservation unless someone specifically asked for it.  They will, however, grab prime season reservations and hold onto them while they try to get renters.  Sometimes they will hold them for months.  Those points they used to hold prime season reservations, can now be used to book Branson in the spring, or Myrtle Beach in the fall.  The prime season reservations can now go to people who will actually use them for personal use.


----------



## Gypsy65

HitchHiker71 said:


> Assuming an average points per reservation of 150k per transaction - that would equate to 467 rental reservations that were denied to actual Wyndham owners.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



I’m not agreeing with the plan
But aren’t they also owners and entitled to the weeks or points they bought wether for person use or other?

What would the difference be if they owned 100 weeks worth or a 100 people each owned 1?

Again, not saying they’re right for doing this but they also own and have what  looks like a pretty high investment and fees as well

I think or see the bigger problem being with Wyndham being able to flex their muscle and change usage and that they could do it to anyone


----------



## VacayKat

Richelle said:


> 1 mega renter books 10 rooms.  Now they cannot, so those 10 rooms are free to go to someone else.  So now you have 10  owners who booked 10 rooms.  That is 9 more people that got bookings because they got rid of one mega renter.  I am not really focusing on one resort or one week.  What I was trying to say was, that instead of those millions of points being concentrated on prime reservations (any prime reservations), they will be used on non-prime reservations as well.  I'm willing to bet the majority of mega renters didn't bother with a low season reservation unless someone specifically asked for it.  They will, however, grab prime season reservations and hold onto them while they try to get renters.  Sometimes they will hold them for months.  Those points they used to hold prime season reservations, can now be used to book Branson in the spring, or Myrtle Beach in the fall.  The prime season reservations can now go to people who will actually use them for personal use.


I get what you are saying, I am just saying that because those prime weeks and locations were not on my to reserve list anyway, distributing their points makes it more likely I will see more competition for what I want to reserve. Also on the odd occasion I want to consider a prime place/time, I grab the reservation and hold on to it even if I think it is a long shot. I think we all do to some extent.


----------



## dgalati

troy12n said:


> Honestly it's more like this:
> 
> Megarenters: I never book at 13/10 months, I only book inside 60 days
> 
> Also Megarenters: (bragging) "I booked out all of NOLA for Mardi Gras and GC for thanksgiving and OW for Bike Week" - if you tried to book at 7am, sorry, should have stayed up till midnight like I did
> 
> You can't speak out of both sides of your mouth... every single "problem" being addressed by Wyndham right now was caused by Mega Renters. Period. End of Story.
> 
> Some VIP's with resale ownership are collateral damage from Wyndham trying to fix the problem created by you guys.
> 
> I actually don't feel sorry for any mega renters, I do feel sorry for the rest of ownership who has to deal with losing some level of VIP privilege's they had grown accustomed to, even if not explicitly allowed. But the enemy is the mega renter, not Wyndham...
> 
> Anything else is FAKE NEWS


Wyndham has some blame in the mega renter issue. Sales upsold vip package to owners that they could rent points and cover maintenance fees as a perk. Wyndham made it known in owners directory that VIP benefits were not available on resale points but did not prevent owners from using resale points with VIP benefits. Wyndham  sales sold cancel and rebook as a benefit and customer service aided and abetted owners in doing it. There are many more examples of Wyndham aiding the abuse to make sales. But what do I know? Other then it was cheaper to rent from a VIP in the 60 day discount window then to pay maintenance fees. Add in the sunk cost for a developer purchase and you wonder @ronparise if many owners really understood 3rd grade math.


----------



## Richelle

I did my best to get through all 19 pages.  I'll add my two cents.

1. It is my understanding that there has always been a rule about no commercial use.  If it wasn't in the directory, then it is likely in the contract that you signed when you bought.  Either way "Subject to change" has always been in play.  So even if it was left out of one directory, it's in the current directory.  It could be considered a "change" that they are allowed to make.

2. If I were Wyndham, I would have done everything I could to wipe out mega renting a long time ago.  Setting aside the fact that you are profiting from my company, you are using my systems to make money, without my authorization.  You own the points, but that reservation system you used to make the reservation for that renter is owned and maintained by Wyndham.  You used their system to make money, without their permission.  It would be like you using your work computer to run a side business.  It's your business, but it's your employer's computer you're using to make money.  In general, employers don't like that.  

3.  Wyndham did create the issue. I suspect they allowed renting for a while because old leadership felt allowing it benefited them in at least two ways.  First, it was a good way to convince people to buy more points.  "You can use the new points to pay for the loan payment and maintenance fees".  I personally heard that sales pitch.  Second, when the owner starts renting their timeshare to non-owners, it brings in new sales leads.  This is just my suspicion.  I have nothing to back it up with, but it makes sense to me. Just because they created the issue, doesn't mean they shouldn't try to stop it.  They absolutely should put a stop to it, if they think it's getting in the way of the owner using their timeshare for their personal use and enjoyment.

4. I believe that every mega renter knew this was not going to last, so this should not be a surprise.  What company would be ok with you profiting off of them, without a formal franchise agreement in place?

5.  Why in the world would Wyndham define what they determine a mega renter is?  Every time they make a change, someone finds a way around the change.  Telling them what makes someone a mega renter will give them to information they need,  to know how to fly under the radar.  That would defeat the whole purpose of these changes.

6. Wyndham needs to come down hard on the salespeople who continue to tout that "we'll rent the points for you" sales pitch if they are still using it.  


I hope Wyndham doesn't settle this lawsuit.  If they are serious about stopping renting, they need to make an example out of someone.  Who better than someone that is costing them legal fees.

Any guesses on how many one-time use points we (VIP resale owners) will get for next year?  My guess is 105,000.  That could be wishful thinking though.  I wonder if it's a flat amount or if it's based on how many resale points we have. Was this already discussed?  I was in technical training when the most recent changes were announced, so I have not seen any of the discussions outside of this one.


----------



## dgalati

Richelle said:


> I did my best to get through all 19 pages.  I'll add my two cents.
> 
> 1. It is my understanding that there has always been a rule about no commercial use.  If it wasn't in the directory, then it is likely in the contract that you signed when you bought.  Either way "Subject to change" has always been in play.  So even if it was left out of one directory, it's in the current directory.  It could be considered a "change" that they are allowed to make.
> 
> 2. If I were Wyndham, I would have done everything I could to wipe out mega renting a long time ago.  Setting aside the fact that you are profiting from my company, you are using my systems to make money, without my authorization.  You own the points, but that reservation system you used to make the reservation for that renter is owned and maintained by Wyndham.  You used their system to make money, without their permission.  It would be like you using your work computer to run a side business.  It's your business, but it's your employer's computer you're using to make money.  In general, employers don't like that.
> 
> 3.  Wyndham did create the issue. I suspect they allowed renting for a while because old leadership felt allowing it benefited them in at least two ways.  First, it was a good way to convince people to buy more points.  "You can use the new points to pay for the loan payment and maintenance fees".  I personally heard that sales pitch.  Second, when the owner starts renting their timeshare to non-owners, it brings in new sales leads.  This is just my suspicion.  I have nothing to back it up with, but it makes sense to me. Just because they created the issue, doesn't mean they shouldn't try to stop it.  They absolutely should put a stop to it, if they think it's getting in the way of the owner using their timeshare for their personal use and enjoyment.
> 
> 4. I believe that every mega renter knew this was not going to last, so this should not be a surprise.  What company would be ok with you profiting off of them, without a formal franchise agreement in place?
> 
> 5.  Why in the world would Wyndham define what they determine a mega renter is?  Every time they make a change, someone finds a way around the change.  Telling them what makes someone a mega renter will give them to information they need,  to know how to fly under the radar.  That would defeat the whole purpose of these changes.
> 
> 6. Wyndham needs to come down hard on the salespeople who continue to tout that "we'll rent the points for you" sales pitch if they are still using it.
> 
> 
> I hope Wyndham doesn't settle this lawsuit.  If they are serious about stopping renting, they need to make an example out of someone.  Who better than someone that is costing them legal fees.
> 
> Any guesses on how many one-time use points we (VIP resale owners) will get for next year?  My guess is 105,000.  That could be wishful thinking though.  I wonder if it's a flat amount or if it's based on how many resale points we have. Was this already discussed?  I was in technical training when the most recent changes were announced, so I have not seen any of the discussions outside of this one.


Welcome back Richelle!


----------



## Richelle

VacayKat said:


> I get what you are saying, I am just saying that because those prime weeks and locations were not on my to reserve list anyway, distributing their points makes it more likely I will see more competition for what I want to reserve. Also on the odd occasion I want to consider a prime place/time, I grab the reservation and hold on to it even if I think it is a long shot. I think we all do to some extent.


I have as well.  Or we will book it far out and months later the plans fall through and we cancel.  There will always be instances of inventory being held.  The difference is, you intended on using it.  Either for yourself or an actual friend or family member.  Also, I don't typically hold more than a couple.  Mega renters hold a lot more.  I see what you're saying now, regarding more competition for the off-season, and it makes sense.  I guess we will see what happens.  Either way, there will always be people complaining they cannot get a three-bedroom two weeks from check-in.


----------



## VacayKat

Richelle said:


> I did my best to get through all 19 pages.  I'll add my two cents.
> *[cut out majority of post to save space, see it above]*
> Any guesses on how many one-time use points we (VIP resale owners) will get for next year?  My guess is 105,000.  That could be wishful thinking though.  I wonder if it's a flat amount or if it's based on how many resale points we have. Was this already discussed?  I was in technical training when the most recent changes were announced, so I have not seen any of the discussions outside of this one.


1- The contract asks you to initial that it is for personal use and not for offsetting MF. I don’t remember a highlight of no commercial (which doesn’t mean it isn’t there)

3- Our program fee specifically pays for the reservation system, so that’s a  murky at best.

5- I’d say they should define commercial because as long as it stays ambiguous, if anyone receives any compensation of any sort for a reservation they make for another, it is realistic they should expect they are in violation of the commercial clause as it currently stands.

Guess on points? I would say 25% of your VIP points.


----------



## Richelle

VacayKat said:


> 1- The contract asks you to initial that it is for personal use and not for offsetting MF. I don’t remember a highlight of no commercial (which doesn’t mean it isn’t there)
> 
> 3- Our program fee specifically pays for the reservation system, so that’s a  murky at best.
> 
> 5- I’d say they should define commercial because as long as it stays ambiguous, if anyone receives any compensation of any sort for a reservation they make for another, it is realistic they should expect they are in violation of the commercial clause as it currently stands.
> 
> Guess on points? I would say 25% of your VIP points.



1.  I dug out my contract.  It is there.  In fact, it's on the same page as the part you mentioned about not offsetting maintenance fees.





3. Our program fee pays for the system and to maintain it, but Wyndham owns it.  There is nothing in the trust documents that say the owners have ownership of that reservation system.  There is nothing in the trust documents that says owners can use that reservation system to book rentals either.

5. That verbage would require Wyndham to prove that the owner got compensation for the reservation in order to enforce it.  It is more efficient to say "If they use 100 GC a year, they might be a mega renter".  Unfortunately, if you release that information, the mega renters will just make sure they stay below 99 reservations on all their accounts.

Edit: 25% would be very generous.  I hope you're right!

Edit again:  The red underline is me.  I didn't get it like that. When you're asked to initial something, it's common sense to read what you are acknowledging.  There should be no need to highlight anything.


----------



## raygo123

Gypsy65 said:


> I’m not agreeing with the plan
> But aren’t they also owners and entitled to the weeks or points they bought wether for person use or other?
> 
> What would the difference be if they owned 100 weeks worth or a 100 people each owned 1?
> 
> Again, not saying they’re right for doing this but they also own and have what looks like a pretty high investment and fees as well
> 
> I think or see the bigger problem being with Wyndham being able to flex their muscle and change usage and that they could do it to anyone


Wyndham would certainly sell I mean choose 100 owning one.

Sent from my Lenovo TB-X606F using Tapatalk


----------



## VacayKat

Richelle said:


> 1.  I dug out my contract.  It is there.  In fact, it's on the same page as the part you mentioned about not offsetting maintenance fees.
> 
> View attachment 38534
> 
> 3. Our program fee pays for the system and to maintain it, but Wyndham owns it.  There is nothing in the trust documents that say the owners have ownership of that reservation system.  There is nothing in the trust documents that says owners can use that reservation system to book rentals either.
> 
> 5. That verbage would require Wyndham to prove that the owner got compensation for the reservation in order to enforce it.  It is more efficient to say "If they use 100 GC a year, they might be a mega renter".  Unfortunately, if you release that information, the mega renters will just make sure they stay below 99 reservations on all their accounts.
> 
> Edit: 25% would be very generous.  I hope you're right!
> 
> Edit again:  The red underline is me.  I didn't get it like that. When you're asked to initial something, it's common sense to read what you are acknowledging.  There should be no need to highlight anything.


I guess what I was getting at is they could have definitions of terms and include commercial in there to clear it up. I personally do not think it is that unclear because when used in business contracts it is pretty well defined. Problem is most folks don’t read, write or research business contracts or law before signing contracts. All wyndham has to do is define it from a business contract verbiage point which would still allow them to have different internal markers they use to identify those they feel are violating it. Essentially if they define commercial as it is commonly used, then any owner should then know they can not receive compensation for a reservation they make (in other words it isn’t a trade/barter/sale situation or even just someone else covering the cost) without violating it. Those who do take the risk, those that don’t are safe. Where wyndham decides it bothers them is a completely different issue.


----------



## Braindead

Richelle said:


> 1 mega renter books 10 rooms.  Now they cannot, so those 10 rooms are free to go to someone else.
> They will, however, grab prime season reservations and hold onto them while they try to get renters.
> Sometimes they will hold them for months.


After Ron, Scooter & Eric posts a couple days ago I’m going to contradict some of my post after rereading the Blackout Dates info on the website. I think the wording changed recently to match the first email. An owner can still make 10 reservations & rent 9 on the blackout dates as long as they keep 1 in an owners name. Here’s my conclusions:
Any owner-mega renter-points manager can still book 10 rooms.
They will still grab prime reservations.
They will still hold the reservations for months.
These changes will have little impact on rental activity.
Rental prices may increase a little to cover some additional costs but will still be a good value for the renter.

This is more like the big freeze than anything else.
Wyndham is forcing a few out of business.
The rule changes haven’t put anyone out of business.

Wyndham is 100% at fault!
Wyndham is the sole policeman of the trust & they’ve failed miserably over & over!!
Why did Wyndham let owners have several accounts with the end result of some owners having 50+ million points.
Why did Wyndham allow some owners to buy hundreds or thousands of GCs.
Kleppas & others have been on Wyndhams radar for over 10 years, what took them so long to act?

Lets hope under the “ New Wyndham” CEO Michael Brown Wyndham will go after the ones deemed a problem in a timely manner.
There’s nothing that I can see in writing where Wyndham states renting is not allowed.
Renting is allowed until Wyndham decides you’re a problem, then they selectively bring out the commercial clause.

If renting is absolutely not allowed:
Wyndham could send C&D letters to websites including TUG that owner rentals are not allowed & the rentals must be taken down. Why don’t they?


----------



## learnalot

Richelle said:


> 1.  I dug out my contract.  It is there.  In fact, it's on the same page as the part you mentioned about not offsetting maintenance fees.
> 
> View attachment 38534



Hi Richelle,
This language has definitely been in the contract for a number of years, but I'm not sure it has always been there - I think it was added to the standard contract language at some point. What was the year of this contract?


----------



## Richelle

Braindead said:


> After Ron, Scooter & Eric posts a couple days ago I’m going to contradict some of my post after rereading the Blackout Dates info on the website. I think the wording changed recently to match the first email. An owner can still make 10 reservations & rent 9 on the blackout dates as long as they keep 1 in an owners name. Here’s my conclusions:
> Any owner-mega renter-points manager can still book 10 rooms.
> They will still grab prime reservations.
> They will still hold the reservations for months.
> These changes will have little impact on rental activity.
> Rental prices may increase a little to cover some additional costs but will still be a good value for the renter.
> 
> This is more like the big freeze than anything else.
> Wyndham is forcing a few out of business.
> The rule changes haven’t put anyone out of business.
> 
> Wyndham is 100% at fault!
> Wyndham is the sole policeman of the trust & they’ve failed miserably over & over!!
> Why did Wyndham let owners have several accounts with the end result of some owners having 50+ million points.
> Why did Wyndham allow some owners to buy hundreds or thousands of GCs.
> Kleppas & others have been on Wyndhams radar for over 10 years, what took them so long to act?
> 
> Lets hope under the “ New Wyndham” CEO Michael Brown Wyndham will go after the ones deemed a problem in a timely manner.
> There’s nothing that I can see in writing where Wyndham states renting is not allowed.
> Renting is allowed until Wyndham decides you’re a problem, then they selectively bring out the commercial clause.
> 
> If renting is absolutely not allowed:
> Wyndham could send C&D letters to websites including TUG that owner rentals are not allowed & the rentals must be taken down. Why don’t they?


I’m not sure if you saw an earlier post of mine. Wyndham never said they were not ok with renting. In fact, I was told from a higher up not in sales that they are ok with the occasional rental. What they are not ok with, is the level of renting they deem as mega renting. So if you rent to a friend or family member, they don’t care. If you rent to a 100 strangers, then they have issues.  

I cannot answer why they allowed people to amass  so many contracts other then the reasons I listed for allowing renting. I’m sure there is more to it, but that’s all I got.


----------



## Richelle

learnalot said:


> Hi Richelle,
> This language has definitely been in the contract for a number of years, but I'm not sure it has always been there - I think it was added to the standard contract language at some point. What was the year of this contract?


That was 2018. This one is 2008. So the clause has been in that contract for at least   13 years. If a mega renter bought any set of points in the past 13 years, they would have had to acknowledge that contract.


----------



## Richelle

VacayKat said:


> I guess what I was getting at is they could have definitions of terms and include commercial in there to clear it up. I personally do not think it is that unclear because when used in business contracts it is pretty well defined. Problem is most folks don’t read, write or research business contracts or law before signing contracts. All wyndham has to do is define it from a business contract verbiage point which would still allow them to have different internal markers they use to identify those they feel are violating it. Essentially if they define commercial as it is commonly used, then any owner should then know they can not receive compensation for a reservation they make (in other words it isn’t a trade/barter/sale situation or even just someone else covering the cost) without violating it. Those who do take the risk, those that don’t are safe. Where wyndham decides it bothers them is a completely different issue.


So they are smart enough to start up a rental business, but not smart enough to know they need to read what they signed?  I could buy they got caught up on the moment and maybe didn’t read it until later, but if they are running a business around their timeshare, they know exactly what was in their contract now. None of this is a surprise to them. They are just mad Wyndham stopped supplying the gravy train with gravy.


----------



## VacayKat

Richelle said:


> So they are smart enough to start up a rental business, but not smart enough to know they need to read what they signed?  I could buy they got caught up on the moment and maybe didn’t read it until later, but if they are running a business around their timeshare, they know exactly what was in their contract now. None of this is a surprise to them. They are just mad Wyndham stopped supplying the gravy train with gravy.


I am actually just talking for regular old folks like you and me and all the others who might randomly receive compensation for a reservation who need some clarity on how Wyndham uses words. Could really not care less about so called mega renters.


----------



## CO skier

Braindead said:


> Kleppas & others have been on Wyndhams radar for over 10 years, what took them so long to act?


There is no question that the Club Wyndham Vacation _Club_ suffered from benign neglect under the previous CEO, possibly coupled with an unreasonable fear of lawsuits by the legal department leadership at the time.

Personnel have changed in both regards, and with that, maybe Club Wyndham will mostly become a Vacation Club for Owner Usage instead of a hotel franchise for profiteers.


----------



## CO skier

VacayKat said:


> I am actually just talking for regular old folks like you and me and all the others who might randomly receive compensation for a reservation who need some clarity on how Wyndham uses words.


This is about as clear as you will get, as it was in a lawsuit

"*Megarenters*

Owners who are operating a commercial vacation rental business

A Megarenter is an Owner who amasses millions of points in their account for the purpose of booking large amounts of inventory so that they can rent out the units for a profit."


If "regular old folks" rent "a few reservations" it is probably not a problem.  Renting "millions of points of reservations" might be a problem.


----------



## paxsarah

CO skier said:


> A Megarenter is an Owner who amasses millions of points in their account *for the purpose of* booking large amounts of inventory so that they can rent out the units for a profit."


As Hitchhiker has said, intent matters, apparently at least to Wyndham in terms of who they consider a megarenter. By this language, if you own points for travel by family and friends but occasionally rent a unit due to circumstances, it doesn’t meet their definition (at least the one they provided in that lawsuit). They don’t define the scale of how many “millions” of points or how large is “large amounts of inventory,” but it’s pretty easy to tell when you’re below both those thresholds and lack the intent.


----------



## Richelle

paxsarah said:


> As Hitchhiker has said, intent matters, apparently at least to Wyndham in terms of who they consider a megarenter. By this language, if you own points for travel by family and friends but occasionally rent a unit due to circumstances, it doesn’t meet their definition (at least the one they provided in that lawsuit). They don’t define the scale of how many “millions” of points or how large is “large amounts of inventory,” but it’s pretty easy to tell when you’re below both those thresholds and lack the intent.


In addition to amassing millions of points, they specify "so that they can rent out the units for a profit".  The person who rents occasionally that you mentioned, also doesn't fall within that parameter.  So I don't think they have to specify how many millions. They used the plural, so it's more than two million at least, then you add in the "so that they can rent out the units for a profit " and you have your mega renter.  I think it's more than two million, but that is their minimum at least.


----------



## VacayKat

CO skier said:


> This is about as clear as you will get, as it was in a lawsuit
> 
> "*Megarenters*
> 
> Owners who are operating a commercial vacation rental business
> 
> A Megarenter is an Owner who amasses millions of points in their account for the purpose of booking large amounts of inventory so that they can rent out the units for a profit."
> 
> 
> If "regular old folks" rent "a few reservations" it is probably not a problem.  Renting "millions of points of reservations" might be a problem.


Thanks for the first part -that is helpful.  Your last sentence by its inclusion of ‘probably’ isn’t all that reassuring. It is all arbitrary and based on wyndham’s decision at the moment.


----------



## Mongoose

*2. Resort availability will be maximized for all owners.*
The Board is introducing a new guideline called the Nightly Unit Limit to maximize resort availability, creating fair and equitable access to inventory for all owners. The Nightly Unit Limit creates a limit of 10 reservations or 20% of a resort — depending on the size of the resort — that can be booked by a single owner for the same timeframe. This change will be implemented in late 2022 or early 2023.


WM is putting new limits in place.  I like this as a WM owner.


----------



## 55plus

Mongoose said:


> *2. Resort availability will be maximized for all owners.*
> The Board is introducing a new guideline called the Nightly Unit Limit to maximize resort availability, creating fair and equitable access to inventory for all owners. The Nightly Unit Limit creates a limit of 10 reservations or 20% of a resort — depending on the size of the resort — that can be booked by a single owner for the same timeframe. This change will be implemented in late 2022 or early 2023.
> WM is putting new limits in place.  I like this as a WM owner.


Sounds like something mega renters would approve. With this policy, 5 mega renters could take over an entire resort under certain circumstances. I'd like to see the reservation restrictions at high demand locations during high demand timeframes stay on place.


----------



## HitchHiker71

55plus said:


> Sounds like something mega renters would approve. With this policy, 5 mega renters could take over an entire resort under certain circumstances. I'd like to see the reservation restrictions at high demand locations during high demand timeframes stay on place.



IIRC these are the same limitations that were put in place for CWP several years ago - so it appears they are standardizing this policy across the other timeshare entities. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Eric B

55plus said:


> Sounds like something mega renters would approve. With this policy, 5 mega renters could take over an entire resort under certain circumstances. I'd like to see the reservation restrictions at high demand locations during high demand timeframes stay on place.



That's for WorldMark, not Wyndham, where the restriction is already in place.  The only circumstances under which 5 megarenters could take over an entire resort due to the 20% restriction is if the resort only has 50 units or less - in other words, the restriction is 10 units or 20% of a resort, whichever is lower.  That matches the restriction in Club Wyndham that already exists.


----------



## 55plus

Still, enough mega renters can still take over an entire resort.


----------



## rickandcindy23

The posts by a few of you have become ridiculous.  Take over an entire resort?  Why don't you book when you can and stop expecting to be able to book anything you want.  If it's left in the 60-day window for us, it's there for you.  We don't see any special inventory, and besides that, our daughter has a friend with a Wyndham resale account that send a screen shot of what she can see at Bonnet Creek for the next four months, and we cannot see as much as she can.  So who is getting more inventory? 

I think we should check inventory at around the same time and see how many bold dates are available for a popular resort like Bonnet Creek and see if there are differences.  I know there will be.


----------



## Rolltydr

rickandcindy23 said:


> The posts by a few of you have become ridiculous.  Take over an entire resort?  Why don't you book when you can and stop expecting to be able to book anything you want.  If it's left in the 60-day window for us, it's there for you.  We don't see any special inventory, and besides that, our daughter has a friend with a Wyndham resale account that send a screen shot of what she can see at Bonnet Creek for the next four months, and we cannot see as much as she can.  So who is getting more inventory?
> 
> I think we should check inventory at around the same time and see how many bold dates are available for a popular resort like Bonnet Creek and see if there are differences.  I know there will be.


Almost as ridiculous as claiming megarenters have no impact on availability.


----------



## paxsarah

55plus said:


> Still, enough mega renters can still take over an entire resort.


Only if you assume absolutely zero other owners will choose to book the minute the window opens. While you’ve made it clear you’re not willing to put in that effort, that doesn’t mean no one else will. It’s absurd to think they won’t.


----------



## 55plus

rickandcindy23 said:


> The posts by a few of you have become ridiculous.  Take over an entire resort?  Why don't you book when you can and stop expecting to be able to book anything you want.  If it's left in the 60-day window for us, it's there for you.  We don't see any special inventory, and besides that, our daughter has a friend with a Wyndham resale account that send a screen shot of what she can see at Bonnet Creek for the next four months, and we cannot see as much as she can.  So who is getting more inventory?
> I think we should check inventory at around the same time and see how many bold dates are available for a popular resort like Bonnet Creek and see if there are differences.  I know there will be.


That's because mega renters were forced to cancel their many profitable reservations after Wyndham put restrictions in place.


----------



## 55plus

rickandcindy23 said:


> We don't see any special inventory, and besides that, our daughter has a friend with a Wyndham resale account that send a screen shot of what she can see at Bonnet Creek for the next four months, and we cannot see as much as she can.


I don't see how that statement can be true unless one of you are deeded and the other is CWA. But after 10 months everything should be the same, so either Wyndham is not playing fair with availability or you are mistaken. Wyndham has too much to lose to be playing games, so that leaves....


----------



## troy12n

rickandcindy23 said:


> The posts by a few of you have become ridiculous.



I agree, some of the posts by you mega renters trying to justify your actions of profiteering at the expense of regular owners is really asburd. I'm glad Wyndham has stepped and and is stopping this. 

A couple people have explained how they did it. Not to say you did, maybe you did, maybe you didn't. Maybe you colluded with other mega renters to take over a location... maybe not. But it's pretty obvious it happened. At least two people were bragging about it, if not in this thread, in others...


----------



## paxsarah

troy12n said:


> Maybe you colluded with other mega renters to take over a location


What could possibly be the motivation for megarenters to collude to take over a single location? Which in addition to having no business purpose, is basically impossible.


----------



## Eric B

paxsarah said:


> What could possibly be the motivation for megarenters to collude to take over a single location? Which in addition to having no business purpose, is basically impossible.



They are responsible for all the bad things that happen and my inability to book a 4 BR Presidential unit at my every whim, aren’t they?    They don’t really need a good reason….


----------



## troy12n

paxsarah said:


> What could possibly be the motivation for megarenters to collude to take over a single location? Which in addition to having no business purpose, is basically impossible.



To manipulate the rental price... of course. 

See also: collusion, price fixing, cartel's

It's easier for a handful of people with common goals to set the market price, than 20-30 people with independent goals


----------



## raygo123

troy12n said:


> To manipulate the rental price... of course.
> 
> See also: collusion, price fixing, cartel's
> 
> It's easier for a handful of people with common goals to set the market price, than 20-30 people with independent goals


A 50% takeover would do it in my opinion. Yes. Or just a case of selling too low for Wyndham's liking. Owner availability bla bla bla blah! Credibility is what shareholders want. New name may be coming. A new product?

Sent from my Lenovo TB-X103F using Tapatalk


----------



## ronparise

HitchHiker71 said:


> If that is how I’m coming across then all I can say is it’s not my intention. I don’t speak on behalf of Wyndham or anyone else other than myself. I do often have strong opinions and my personality leans heavily toward intuition and judgment styles (INTJ) so I’m not at all surprised to see this characterization by you and/or others. I also happen to have a matter of fact style that can sometimes portray statements made as somewhat factual when what I’m stating is really just my personal observations when connecting the dots so to speak. I do try to avoid this by actually stating that I’m making a factual statement, but I’m not perfect and it is sometimes difficult to remember to differentiate myself in this respect when on public forums like TUG.  I am who I am at the end of the day. You be you - I will be me.
> 
> I do feel that there’s a transition in play both within Wyndham and here on TUG as well. We are all attempting to navigate this transition together. However I can be of assistance - that’s my goal. Work with TUG Wyndham owners and work with Wyndham to improve ownership experiences for the majority of owners.
> 
> The inherent difficulty with this thread is that MRs don’t represent the majority - so if it seems like I’m coming across as somewhat judgmental toward this extremely small minority of the ownership base - that is feasible despite my best efforts to avoid doing so. I’ve said exactly that on other threads as well. With respect to this point - thanks for bringing this to my attention - it is most appreciated. I will endeavor to do better.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



A couple of things

_"I also happen to have a matter of fact style that can sometimes portray statements made as somewhat factual when what I’m stating is really just my personal observations"_ 
When what you are stating is just an opinion, That's not a "matter of fact style"  What it is is a matter of opinion style .  Some might call it a B.S. style  (not me of course)

And if you see this bias toward opinion over fact in yourself, Instead of warning us that what you are about to say is a fact, rather than opinion, why dont you do it the other way... I always assume that the person Im talking to is telling me the truth, until I catch them lying.  Not that an opinion is a lie, but its not necessarily  fact either.  Now that I know how you operate, , instead of believing that your argument is based in fact, Ill know that your opinions have no fact behind them at all  and Ill be quicker to call BS


You also have this minority/majority thing backward too.  Rules (regulation and law) are put in place to protect the rights of the few from the many, Not to dismiss the rights of the few, in favor of the many.  Just because there are more small owners, doesn't mean you guys can gang up on the few megarenters

For me the operative word in this whole discussion is "rights".. The little owner has rights, the big owner has rights and Wyndhams  job in this  is to protect the rights of all of us.  And  property rights is a big thing, 

Club Wyndham however does not give any owner the right to any particular reservation,  Its an exchange club. All any owner has is the right to a reservation or reservations somewhere at some time, depending on the number of points owned. Even in the ARP window. Using La Belle Maison as an example, (because thats a place Im familiar with)
There are 135 rooms and 52 weeks in the year, so, assuming its a sold out resort,  enough points have been sold to reserve every room for every week of the year, So potentially there are over 7000 owners competing for 135 rooms for Mardi Gras. 13 months in advance. So all my ownership gave me was the right to try for a Mardi Gras reservation

So Wyndhams stated goal here has always been to level the playing field, not (in my opinion) to eliminate renting, Not even large scale commercial renting.  At annual meetings, I made a point of meeting the top executives, when I could.. I remember introducing myself to one bigshot as a mega renter. He said, "you know we dont like you guys much around here".   I went away with the question...Why dont they stop me, or at least ask me to stop. All the rules a rule changes since the early 2000's were designed to level the playing field or curtail renting, not eliminate it. Why not??? the only answer I can come up with is "rights'

Ive made a lot of bad decisions in my business life, and a few things right,   I can think of two things I did right with Wyndham 1) I was asked to join with Bill Spearman and other early megarenters in their lawsuit against Wyndham. I declined. 2) When Wyndham froze my account and threatened to sue me, I didnt rise to the bait.  I always believed that when a dispute goes to court. no one comes out satisfied.  so the 3rd thing i did right was to ask Wyndham what they wanted and I gave it to them. 

So are we in a transition period? Sure, but its been going on  for  12 years or more.


----------



## ronparise

paxsarah said:


> I'm not sure I'm completely sold on this because it depends on assumptions about how megarenters book. I kind of think I'm a regular owner, so I'm more likely to compete against other regular owners like me in terms of booking patterns rather than a megarenter, but who can say? But as Ron has long said, when he was a megarenter he might have had the goal of booking 10 units with ARP or at 10 months, but he had to do so consecutively, one after the other. If that megarenter was replaced with 10 or 25 or 50 regular owners, now I'm against multiple regular owners all trying to book the second it opens. So I'm not convinced I'm better or worse off with that replacement.
> 
> Further along in my saga of understanding  you'll find I came to the realization that if this change helps me (as an individual existing regular owner) at all, it's that with many new "regular" owners replacing a much smaller number of megarenters, that some of the new regular owners are going to be like the people who join the gym but never use it. Some of the new owners are going to flake on their ownership and never or rarely book. (Whereas regardless of their patterns, I think we can assume megarenters use very close to every single point.) And that's where real new availability comes from - other people not using their owned points.



Ron also said that if  there are 100 rooms available and I want 10, if there are another 100 owners after the the same reservation, Ill only get one, because while Im making my first reservation 99 other folks are making theirs, and when I finish my first and go for the second one... There will be none left

I know its a stretch, but there is some truth to this:  "I only made reservations that no one else wanted"


----------



## ronparise

tschwa2 said:


> I doubt there will be any special buy out unless you are willing to threaten and follow through with legal actions.  For most VIP owners regular certified exit/ovations/limited editions or sell independently will be the only options.




I think just the opposite  If there is a golden parachute it will be offered to those that ask for it and dont threaten to sue


----------



## tschwa2

ronparise said:


> I think just the opposite  If there is a golden parachute it will be offered to those that ask for it and dont threaten to sue


You could be right.  I still don't know if every 2-5 million owner would be offered a golden parachute even if they ask nicely.   I think more likely it would be more akin to limited editions (3 years of use w/o MF's) even on the resale if they simply go away.


----------



## ronparise

Richelle said:


> So they are smart enough to start up a rental business, but not smart enough to know they need to read what they signed?  I could buy they got caught up on the moment and maybe didn’t read it until later, but if they are running a business around their timeshare, they know exactly what was in their contract now. None of this is a surprise to them. They are just mad Wyndham stopped supplying the gravy train with gravy.




Virtually everything I owned was purchased on the secondary market.. I had no contract with Wyndham.  except two small eoys, and you are correct, I only read one paragraph. The one that said this $12000 purchase would make me platinum VIP

And I for one never claimed I ran a business,,, it was a hustle, that I operated like a business, and yes I always knew it could end at any time,


----------



## ronparise

tschwa2 said:


> You could be right.  I still don't know if every 2-5 million owner would be offered a golden parachute even if they ask nicely.   I think more likely it would be more akin to limited editions (3 years of use w/o MF's) even on the resale if they simply go away.



You may be right about the little owners like that, but even that wont be offered if the owner sues


----------



## ronparise

Richelle said:


> So they are smart enough to start up a rental business, but not smart enough to know they need to read what they signed?  I could buy they got caught up on the moment and maybe didn’t read it until later, but if they are running a business around their timeshare, they know exactly what was in their contract now. None of this is a surprise to them. They are just mad Wyndham stopped supplying the gravy train with gravy.




I already had a rental business and I was smart enough not to read the contract
Wyndham is still making gravy, and In confident that as long as there are reservations that cost under 1000 in mf, that can be rented for $2000...rentals are going to happen. Thats how I started and I bet that someone will do it again

I got a call recently from a Wyndham salesman trying to get me into a presentation.. That aint supposed to happen. Im supposed to be on a list.  I may spend some time at a Wyndham resort and buy something.  Ill rescind  but before I do Ill dig into the new rules and see what I can see. .. An old guy with nothing but time ought to be able to find a way to make some money


----------



## ronparise

CO skier said:


> There is no question that the Club Wyndham Vacation _Club_ suffered from benign neglect under the previous CEO, possibly coupled with an unreasonable fear of lawsuits by the legal department leadership at the time.
> 
> Personnel have changed in both regards, and with that, maybe Club Wyndham will mostly become a Vacation Club for Owner Usage instead of a hotel franchise for profiteers.


Benign neglect.???. The number of resorts grew, profits were up,  Wyndham has always been a vacation club, operated for Wyndhams profit






paxsarah said:


> What could possibly be the motivation for megarenters to collude to take over a single location? Which in addition to having no business purpose, is basically impossible.


  exactly.   There was no collusion, and nobody took over any resort.. (except maybe in Worldmark there are resorts there with only a few units)


----------



## CO skier

ronparise said:


> I always assume that the person Im talking to is telling me the truth, until I catch them lying.


You mean, as an example, like advertising as “Bargains” dozens of Wyndham contracts stripped of 2-3 years of future years’ usage for which the new owners would have to pay maintenance fees without the usage?

And “disclosure” is no excuse and does not change the fact that they were not bargains, especially as “bargains” were and are defined in the TUG Bargains Forum.


----------



## CO skier

At 6:34 p.m. ronparise said:


> And I for one never claimed I ran a business,



Thirteen minutes later, the story is completely different


At 6:47 p.m. ronparise said:


> I already had a rental business and I was smart enough not to read the contract




Will the real ronparise please stand-up and post with some consistency?


----------



## CO skier

CO skier said:


> There is no question that the Club Wyndham Vacation _Club_ suffered from benign neglect under the previous CEO,





ronparise said:


> Benign neglect.???. The number of resorts grew, profits were up,  Wyndham has always been a vacation club, operated for Wyndhams profit


You state the obvious, but it is irrelevant to my post.

I italicized “_Club_” in my post to emphasize my meaning, yet you still misunderstood or choose to misdirect the post to “corporate”  Wyndham, instead of _Club_ Wyndham.

The “Beneficiaries” of Club Wyndham are the “Members” of Club Wyndham.  Any owner can look this up in the Club Wyndham Trust Agreement.  In short, Club Wyndham exists for the benefit of all Members who purchase an interest in the vacation club.


Wyndham recognized as early as 2005 that “megarenters” were screwing other owners of the vacation _Club_.  From the Spearman lawsuit:

*“As early as 2005,Wyndham began to notice problems associated with allowing a group of large point owners, sometimes referred to as “Megarenters,” to run large rental businesses using Wyndham points.”*



It took more than 10 years for Wyndham management to do something about it.  To me, that is benign neglect.  To Wyndham’s credit, eventually they did do something about it, and now there are more changes to take reservations out of megarenter control and put them into the hands of owners who paid to join _Club_ Wyndham and for the privilege of taking their family on a great vacation.


----------



## Mongoose

CO skier said:


> You mean, as an example, like advertising as “Bargains” dozens of Wyndham contracts stripped of 2-3 years of future years’ usage for which the new owners would have to pay maintenance fees without the usage?
> 
> And “disclosure” is no excuse and does not change the fact that they were not bargains, especially as “bargains” were and are defined in the TUG Bargains Forum.


Still a newbie on this topic.  You mean Wyndham allowed forward usage of 2-3 years of points without having to pay MF's in advance?  That just seems like bad business practices.  The brands I have require pre-pay to bring forward credits or the MF's to be paid before check-in depending on variables.


----------



## Eric B

Mongoose said:


> Still a newbie on this topic.  You mean Wyndham allowed forward usage of 2-3 years of points without having to pay MF's in advance?  That just seems like bad business practices.  The brands I have require pre-pay to bring forward credits or the MF's to be paid before check-in depending on variables.



They did before the update before the last major one; they also allowed (and sales encouraged) cancelling and rebooking units by VIP owners once they got to the discount window.  Both seem like horribly bad and negligent business practices, although they might make some warped sense if there is an overabundance of developer-owned points that they don't have anything to do with other than essentially giving away to VIPs in an effort to incentivize sales.  The net result of those business practices and others was the rise of the megarenters in the Wyndham system, IMHO.  Honestly, though, I do get the feeling that they are bogeymen that folks discuss as being responsible for anything that doesn't go there way - if they can't book a high demand resort in a peak week, but see one rental of it offered, the megarenters must have somehow gained control of the entire resort for that week, it couldn't have been the fact that it's a high demand peak week that their fellow owners booked in addition to the one person that booked it and is offering it for rent.


----------



## ronparise

CO skier said:


> You state the obvious, but it is irrelevant to my post.
> 
> I italicized “_Club_” in my post to emphasize my meaning, yet you still misunderstood or choose to misdirect the post to “corporate”  Wyndham, instead of _Club_ Wyndham.
> 
> The “Beneficiaries” of Club Wyndham are the “Members” of Club Wyndham.  Any owner can look this up in the Club Wyndham Trust Agreement.  In short, Club Wyndham exists for the benefit of all Members who purchase an interest in the vacation club.
> 
> 
> Wyndham recognized as early as 2005 that “megarenters” were screwing other owners of the vacation _Club_.  From the Spearman lawsuit:
> 
> *“As early as 2005,Wyndham began to notice problems associated with allowing a group of large point owners, sometimes referred to as “Megarenters,” to run large rental businesses using Wyndham points.”*
> 
> 
> 
> It took more than 10 years for Wyndham management to do something about it.  To me, that is benign neglect.  To Wyndham’s credit, eventually they did do something about it, and now there are more changes to take reservations out of megarenter control and put them into the hands of owners who paid to join _Club_ Wyndham and for the privilege of taking their family on a great vacation.




 I I know the difference between Club Wyndham and the corporation  And of course the Club was established for the benefit of the owners. (Id remind you that the megarenters are owners too) but the Club was created to give the developer buyers for their product. Wyndham manages the club, and they may do it in part to keep the owners happy , but I believe Wyndham the corporation manages the club primarily for the benefit of their stockholders 

What you posted in *bold *print is something you posted before, You didnt have to yell, I read it before and I understand it.   I also understand that you took that quote out of context,  The complete quote goes onto say more.  "As early as 2005,Wyndham began to notice problems associated with allowing a group of large point owners, sometimes referred to as "Megarenters," to run large rental businesses using Wyndham points. A Wyndham internal presentation from 2005 noted that the company supported owners running rental businesses at the time, but recommended limiting transactions and tightening rules because of the negative effects Megarenters were having on Wyndham’s business". 

Read that last part again especially thr part I bolded and enlarged and put in red to ,ake my point.    _A Wyndham internal presentation from 2005 noted that the company supported owners running rental businesses at the time, but _recommended limiting transactions and tightening rules because of the *negative effects Megarenters were having on Wyndham’s business".  * _

My conclusion from reading the whole quote is that Wyndhan  doesnt give a shit about the owners and that that they dont take action until or unless they can get some benefit for their stockholders


----------



## ronparise

Mongoose said:


> Still a newbie on this topic.  You mean Wyndham allowed forward usage of 2-3 years of points without having to pay MF's in advance?  That just seems like bad business practices.  The brands I have require pre-pay to bring forward credits or the MF's to be paid before check-in depending on variables.



I been living in Florida for 25years and Ive learned that there is one thing that pisses of Floridians more than almost anything else, and thats when a snowbird says "that's not how we do it back home"  If you want to do it like you do back home... you should have stayed home.


What you are saying about the credit pool shows a lack of understanding of just how the credit pool worked.. I get it, its a nuanced thingn that a newbie might not get. but the fact is that, the maintenance fees were paid.   But there is no excuse for an experienced Wyndham owner to make the dame mistake.


----------



## A.Win

CO skier said:


> You mean, as an example, like advertising as “Bargains” dozens of Wyndham contracts stripped of 2-3 years of future years’ usage for which the new owners would have to pay maintenance fees without the usage?
> 
> And “disclosure” is no excuse and does not change the fact that they were not bargains, especially as “bargains” were and are defined in the TUG Bargains Forum.



I remember when Ron was selling his contracts. I asked about buying the ones with low MFs, but he already found other buyers. Ron simply bought low and sold high in a new and clever way. This is exactly what EVERY investor tries to do. I never understood why people objected to this. He spent a lot of time developing relationships with sellers and buyers. So he deserves the profits that result from this work.


----------



## raygo123

A.Win said:


> I remember when Ron was selling his contracts. I asked about buying the ones with low MFs, but he already found other buyers. Ron simply bought low and sold high in a new and clever way. This is exactly what EVERY investor tries to do. I never understood why people objected to this. He spent a lot of time developing relationships with sellers and buyers. So he deserves the profits that result from this work.


Does that hold true for the thief that works hard at it?

Sent from my Lenovo TB-X103F using Tapatalk


----------



## ilya

CO skier said:


> ... It took more than 10 years for Wyndham management to do something about it.  To me, that is benign neglect.  To Wyndham’s credit, eventually they did do something about it, and now there are more changes to take reservations out of megarenter control and put them into the hands of owners who paid to join _Club_ Wyndham and for the privilege of taking their family on a great vacation.



Why did it take Wyndham that long for them to fix the Megarenters? There a quite a few former Wyndham employees that are now point managers… is this why it was not fixed, maybe some of the employees had a dual interest in Wyndham… family members becoming mega renters ?

In my opinion Wyndham should have never let someone own 60 million points…they must of let this happen for a reason.. seems like someone had a personal interest with in Wyndham to let this continue and it must be a higher up person.. that’s just my theory ‍♀


----------



## Mongoose

ronparise said:


> I been living in Florida for 25years and Ive learned that there is one thing that pisses of Floridians more than almost anything else, and thats when a snowbird says "that's not how we do it back home"  If you want to do it like you do back home... you should have stayed home.
> 
> 
> What you are saying about the credit pool shows a lack of understanding of just how the credit pool worked.. I get it, its a nuanced thingn that a newbie might not get. but the fact is that, the maintenance fees were paid.   But there is no excuse for an experienced Wyndham owner to make the dame mistake.


Better go back to bed, looks like you got up on the wrong side. Maybe you should take time to read the post. I know my systems and how they work.  I was first to say I’m new to Wyndham.


----------



## rickandcindy23

The personal attacks on Ron and mega renters (of which I might be called one, but we own a small fraction of what Klebba's own), are going to keep me off of this forum from this point on.  I will not post anymore.  Wyndham doesn't hate us nearly as much you people do.  I said we were getting out of the rental business and need to get rid of points that aren't platinum, and I will be doing that.  You will see them for sale on TUG's Marketplace.

And I still believe that if inventory was THERE FOR US, it was THERE FOR YOU.  So maybe tenaciousness is something that you don't understand.

So I am out.  Ron, you are a great guy and I totally understand your frustration with the posts against "mega renters."  I am right there with you.  I even laugh out loud at your posts.  Because you are so right!  A mega renter cannot take over an entire resort for a week, there is no way they can do that, unless it's a week no one wants.

A lot of this is envy, and envy is ugly.


----------



## A.Win

VacayKat said:


> I agree in premise, but personally my approach would be to maximize all my vip points in the discount window so I don’t feel the resale loss and use resale for times I know won’t get upgrade or be available in 60 day window.
> For e.g. I’d blow all my resale (and some vip) on my honolulu 10 days in August that I need to drop a kid at college. It’s a higher demand time and a long reservation - upgrade unlikely and no way it would be available within 60 days. But you cn be sure that for the rest of my reservations I’m watching all the other resort availability closely and even considering changing resorts if I find something cheaper to save points in the 60 day window. [not so much this year, but in general]
> Essentially given VIP perk loss to the resale points, I think VIP will be looking to maximize their benefits on the vip-eligible, which may in fact make discounts more competitive. Remains to be seen though.



I will be doing the same. I will use ARP to book MORE high demand resorts during peak seasons since my resale points no longer get VIP discounts and upgrades. So this change will result in LESS availability for other owners.


----------



## Mongoose

rickandcindy23 said:


> The personal attacks on Ron and mega renters (of which I might be called one, but we own a small fraction of what Klebba's own), are going to keep me off of this forum from this point on.  I will not post anymore.  Wyndham doesn't hate us nearly as much you people do.  I said we were getting out of the rental business and need to get rid of points that aren't platinum, and I will be doing that.  You will see them for sale on TUG's Marketplace.
> 
> And I still believe that if inventory was THERE FOR US, it was THERE FOR YOU.  So maybe tenaciousness is something that you don't understand.
> 
> So I am out.  Ron, you are a great guy and I totally understand your frustration with the posts against "mega renters."  I am right there with you.  I even laugh out loud at your posts.  Because you are so right!  A mega renter cannot take over an entire resort for a week, there is no way they can do that, unless it's a week no one wants.
> 
> A lot of this is envy, and envy is ugly.


Really?  Find one time I "attacked" Ron or anyone.  Read what he posted in response to my honest question.  Ron is the one that could take a lesson in civility.


----------



## paxsarah

Mongoose said:


> Find one time I "attacked" Ron or anyone.


Pretty sure this one wasn’t about you. Or at least, you’d be pretty far down the list.


----------



## Richelle

ronparise said:


> I already had a rental business and I was smart enough not to read the contract
> Wyndham is still making gravy, and In confident that as long as there are reservations that cost under 1000 in mf, that can be rented for $2000...rentals are going to happen. Thats how I started and I bet that someone will do it again
> 
> I got a call recently from a Wyndham salesman trying to get me into a presentation.. That aint supposed to happen. Im supposed to be on a list.  I may spend some time at a Wyndham resort and buy something.  Ill rescind  but before I do Ill dig into the new rules and see what I can see. .. An old guy with nothing but time ought to be able to find a way to make some money


 "Smart enough not to read the contract"?  What planet are you from, where it's smart not to read the contract you signed?  Regardless, it was in the directory.  Even if it wasn't in the directory when they bought it, it was in the directory later.  It's not up to Wyndham to hold their hand and tell them they should keep up on the rules.  They put out a new directory every year, and it's common sense to see if there were any changes.  Show me a mega renter who says they didn't know that commercial use was against the rules, and I will show you an ignorant fool.  

I never said rentals were not going to happen.  They just won't happen to the extent they are now.  I'm sure some will use the scheme of booking two reservations when they rent a reservation.  One is in their name.  The problem is, it's not as cheap as before to do that.  So it's much more difficult to make a profit.  I'm sure some can do it, but not as much as they used to.  They have to decide if less profit is worth the extra trouble.  Judging by the number of large contracts that recently hit the market, I would venture to say a lot of them have already decided it's not.  Personally, I can think of a few ways to still make a profit, but it wouldn't be as good as it was before.


----------



## jebloomquist

rickandcindy23 said:


> I said we were getting out of the rental business and need to get rid of points that aren't platinum, and I will be doing that. You will see them for sale on TUG's Marketplace.


When you or someone else sells on TUG's Marketplace, who does the associated administrative paperwork?
Years ago I prurchased an Hawiian contract fron an owner who had no idea what it actually was and what was required to sell it. I volunteered to shepard the paperwork.  It took many months, numerous phone calls to complete. I don't care to go through that again as the seller.


----------



## chapjim

CO skier said:


> Thirteen minutes later, the story is completely different
> 
> 
> 
> Will the real ronparise please stand-up and post with some consistency?



Ron had a real estate rental business apart from Wyndham.  There is no inconsistency, only your misunderstanding.


----------



## 55plus

rickandcindy23 said:


> we own a small fraction of what Klebba's own


A small fraction of 67 million points is still 10 million points, give or take.


----------



## Richelle

rickandcindy23 said:


> The personal attacks on Ron and mega renters (of which I might be called one, but we own a small fraction of what Klebba's own), are going to keep me off of this forum from this point on.  I will not post anymore.  Wyndham doesn't hate us nearly as much you people do.  I said we were getting out of the rental business and need to get rid of points that aren't platinum, and I will be doing that.  You will see them for sale on TUG's Marketplace.
> 
> And I still believe that if inventory was THERE FOR US, it was THERE FOR YOU.  So maybe tenaciousness is something that you don't understand.
> 
> So I am out.  Ron, you are a great guy and I totally understand your frustration with the posts against "mega renters."  I am right there with you.  I even laugh out loud at your posts.  Because you are so right!  A mega renter cannot take over an entire resort for a week, there is no way they can do that, unless it's a week no one wants.
> 
> A lot of this is envy, and envy is ugly.



I have rented a couple of times.  The people were nice and didn't cause any issues.  Still, the amount of work you would have to put into a business was a big turn-off for me.  Not to mention some people are picky and entitled.  I couldn't deal with that. I don't envy you, because I don't want what you have.  I also do not hate mega renters.  I think some of this is coming from the fact that many mega renters feel entitled to rent, and we are trying to explain that there is no entitlement, despite what the salesperson told you.  Contracts and directories spell out that it's not for commercial use.  It doesn't matter whether people have equal opportunity or not.  It doesn't matter whether you can take over a resort or not.  A mega renter is violating the commercial use clause.  Period.  Obviously, it's ok to disagree with that cause, but it's not ok to violate it.  Mega renters can blame the salespeople all they want.  It won't hold water, because any mega renter worth their salt knows salespeople lie.  I do not hate mega renters.  I just don't feel sorry for them.


As a side note, I kind of disagree with the equal opportunity argument.  In the ARP window, someone who owns Bonnet Creek doesn't have an equal chance to book Clearwater as a Clearwater owner does. Someone who is VIP has a better shot at getting prime inventory than a non-VIP because they can book RARP.  At 10 months, we are all equal.  The exception being PR and Margaritaville have access to inventory regular owners do not.  So mega renters who are VIPs have a better shot at getting prime inventory than non-VIP.  Obviously, that goes for all VIPs, not just mega renters.  However, considering most (or all) mega renters are VIPs, I can say the equal opportunity argument is not entirely true.  Also, a lot of mega renters own contracts at desirable locations and have a better shot at grabbing those more desirable rooms because they can book 13 months out.  With that said, this doesn't apply to mega renters who only rent reservations that are inside the discount window, or even in the standard window.  They do not have any advantage over non-VIP.  Obviously, I do not see them booking up most of the resort in that window, but I guess it's not impossible.  Just unlikely.  If I was a mega renter, I wouldn't put all my eggs in one basket, but maybe that's just me.


----------



## 55plus

A.Win said:


> I will be doing the same. I will use ARP to book MORE high demand resorts during peak seasons since my resale points no longer get VIP discounts and upgrades. So this change will result in LESS availability for other owners.


Your one ARP reservation is not the same as 10 mega renters each making 10 reservations (100 total) for commerce at a prime location, let's say, over Christmas. Do the math and you'll see we, as personal use owner will be better in terms of availability without mega renters screwing over the rest of us.


----------



## chapjim

ilya said:


> <snip>
> 
> In my opinion *Wyndham should have never let someone own 60 million points*…they must of [sic] let this happen for a reason.. seems like someone had a personal interest with in Wyndham to let this continue and it must be a higher up person.. that’s just my theory ‍♀



It's not a particularly good theory.

There's a difference between owning 60 million points and controlling 60 million points.  To be useful, a single account with 60 million points would have to have a few dozen owners.  Even then, restrictions on the number of reservations or percentage of units available at a resort would limit what could be done with that account.

More likely, the 60 million points is an aggregation of maybe a dozen or so smaller accounts, each with multiple owners.  I know we see some large contracts on eBay being sold under the same eBay seller ID.  eBay seller ID says nothing about the identity of the owner(s) of the Wyndham contract in the listing.


----------



## Mongoose

jebloomquist said:


> When you or someone else sells on TUG's Marketplace, who does the associated administrative paperwork?
> Years ago I prurchased an Hawiian contract fron an owner who had no idea what it actually was and what was required to sell it. I volunteered to shepard the paperwork.  It took many months, numerous phone calls to complete. I don't care to go through that again as the seller.


I thought you picked your own company.  I used LT Transfers on three including sales and deed swap.


----------



## r4rab

Not sure if this is the right thread for this but since there is a lot of discussion of VIP and resale vs. retail here, I posted here.
No one has mentioned the possibility of Wyndham making VIP more desirable once the dust settles now that they have segregated retail from resale. Maybe they restore unlimited HK for some VIP levels. Maybe they come up with something else to help boost sales to people looking for VIP. One thing that can be certain after this change, there will be fewer VIP reservations which can make it more cost effective to boost VIP benefits. Just a thought.


----------



## 55plus

Not all VIPs lost HCs. My 30 year old VIPP still has unlimited HCs. Some of us were grandfathered.


----------



## bnoble

r4rab said:


> No one has mentioned the possibility of Wyndham making VIP more desirable once the dust settles now that they have segregated retail from resale.


I don't think this is likely. One of the data points that was shared earlier in this thread (or maybe a related one) was just how few accounts had any resale deeds/contracts, period. If that's even remotely accurate, the existence of resale isn't material to the sales effort.


----------



## tschwa2

55plus said:


> Not all VIPs lost HCs. My 30 year old VIPP still has unlimited HCs. Some of us were grandfathered.


Everyone was grandfathered.  It is just people who hadn't reached those statuses by Nov of 2020 that don't get unlimited HK and/or gold by that time for the transaction credits.


----------



## ronparise

Richelle said:


> "Smart enough not to read the contract"?  What planet are you from, where it's smart not to read the contract you signed?  Regardless, it was in the directory.  Even if it wasn't in the directory when they bought it, it was in the directory later.  It's not up to Wyndham to hold their hand and tell them they should keep up on the rules.  They put out a new directory every year, and it's common sense to see if there were any changes.  Show me a mega renter who says they didn't know that commercial use was against the rules, and I will show you an ignorant fool.
> 
> I never said rentals were not going to happen.  They just won't happen to the extent they are now.  I'm sure some will use the scheme of booking two reservations when they rent a reservation.  One is in their name.  The problem is, it's not as cheap as before to do that.  So it's much more difficult to make a profit.  I'm sure some can do it, but not as much as they used to.  They have to decide if less profit is worth the extra trouble.  Judging by the number of large contracts that recently hit the market, I would venture to say a lot of them have already decided it's not.  Personally, I can think of a few ways to still make a profit, but it wouldn't be as good as it was before.


I’ve been around real estate for a long time and know two things about contracts 1) they are always written to favor the guy that wrote it (in this case , Wyndham)  and 2) the terms are only as strong as the will of the the aggrieved party to enforce it


CO skier said:


> You mean, as an example, like advertising as “Bargains” dozens of Wyndham contracts stripped of 2-3 years of future years’ usage for which the new owners would have to pay maintenance fees without the usage?
> 
> And “disclosure” is no excuse and does not change the fact that they were not bargains, especially as “bargains” were and are defined in the TUG Bargains Forum.




yes exactly like that.. nothing


CO skier said:


> You mean, as an example, like advertising as “Bargains” dozens of Wyndham contracts stripped of 2-3 years of future years’ usage for which the new owners would have to pay maintenance fees without the usage?
> 
> And “disclosure” is no excuse and does not change the fact that they were not bargains, especially as “bargains” were and are defined in the TUG Bargains Forum.




WE have a difference of opinion anout that 5 year old posting 


CO skier said:


> Thirteen minutes later, the story is completely different
> 
> 
> 
> Will the real ronparise please stand-up and post with some consistency?



I had been buying, selling and renting real estate since the  the 1970's I so yea I had a realestate rental business.. looking back on what I did buying selling and renting Wyndham  timeshares was something else..Im calling it a hustle.. I knew it couldnt be sustained


----------



## r4rab

55plus said:


> Not all VIPs lost HCs. My 30 year old VIPP still has unlimited HCs. Some of us were grandfathered.


I know. I was grandfathered as well. But that does nothing for trying to attract people to buy up to VIP today. Even after these recent changes, resale will look very attractive vs retail VIP (at least dollar wise). Wyndham will need to try to improve VIP benefits to encourage people to buy up to it.


----------



## ronparise

ilya said:


> Why did it take Wyndham that long for them to fix the Megarenters? There a quite a few former Wyndham employees that are now point managers… is this why it was not fixed, maybe some of the employees had a dual interest in Wyndham… family members becoming mega renters ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CO skier said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean, as an example, like advertising as “Bargains” dozens of Wyndham contracts stripped of 2-3 years of future years’ usage for which the new owners would have to pay maintenance fees without the usage?
> 
> And “disclosure” is no excuse and does not change the fact that they were not bargains, especially as “bargains” were and are defined in the TUG Bargains Forum.
> 
> 
> 
> Thats my assumption.. I assume others are telling me the truth (Including you)
> I know other people (perhaps you) that assume just the opposite
Click to expand...


----------



## Rolltydr

ronparise said:


> Co Skier
> 
> Thats my assumption.. I assume others are telling me the truth (Including you)
> I know other people (perhaps you) that assume just the opposite


Ron, I hope you will excuse me if I don’t trust an admitted hustler to be telling the truth about anything else.


----------



## OutSkiing

rickandcindy23 said:


> So I am out.


Please don’t go! It is just a few who have expressed negative feelings. I have always loved the tidbits of information the megarenters used to discuss. I believe it is you who has shared great information about Shearwater. And Ron has always had relevant and interesting comments. I doubt if my personal unit availability has ever been affected by megarenter activity .. if not them then I would be competing with someone else for units.


----------



## troy12n

Apparently some of the mega renters have pretty think skin, some of them talk out of both sides of their mouths too.


----------



## dgalati

ronparise said:


> I had been buying, selling and renting real estate since the  the 1970's I so yea I had a realestate rental business.. looking back on what I did buying selling and renting Wyndham  timeshares was something else..Im calling it a hustle.. I knew it couldnt be sustained


Some where a long time ago I know you thought this was the hustle you really wanted to dance to.


----------



## DeniseM

So, apparently you guys are all so mad at Wyndham that you decided to turn on each other?  Seems like a great strategy!

How about a timeout to cool off until tomorrow?


----------



## DeniseM

The thread is unlocked: If there are new posts that violate the TUG rules, please report by clicking "Report" at the bottom of the problem post.

To keep this thread open, please attack the issues, and not your fellow Tuggers.


----------



## dgalati




----------



## CO skier

chapjim said:


> Ron had a real estate rental business apart from Wyndham.  There is no inconsistency, only your misunderstanding.


There is also this for context



In November 2017 ronparise said:


> There is no doubt that I was using my Wyndham ownership for commercial purposes and there is no doubt that Wyndham *forced me out of business*


----------



## ilya

chapjim said:


> It's not a particularly good theory.
> 
> There's a difference between owning 60 million points and controlling 60 million points.  To be useful, a single account with 60 million points would have to have a few dozen owners.  Even then, restrictions on the number of reservations or percentage of units available at a resort would limit what could be done with that account.
> 
> More likely, the 60 million points is an aggregation of maybe a dozen or so smaller accounts, each with multiple owners.  I know we see some large contracts on eBay being sold under the same eBay seller ID.  eBay seller ID says nothing about the identity of the owner(s) of the Wyndham contract in the listing.




Wasn't the Klebbla lawsuit over the 67 million points they own?  They should have never been allowed to aquire this many points... Wyndham allowed it and looked the other way... Why? As I stated above someone high up in the company must have had a personal interest.... Or else it could have been stopped...I have seen corporate emails that were forward to former employees on new changes happening...All I am saying is some of the megarenters could have been somehow affiliated with Wyndham.. New management takes over and rules start to be enforced..

Whether the points are in one account or spread out , someone has control of a lot of points... This goes for the same as Point Managers.. They have control over 10 plus million point + accounts... They can easily manipulate the system with that many points , even if they are in multiple owners... So, in reality, these PM should also be eliminated...I am not saying Wyndham should do that but should be treated as all the other megaenters... I can see how PM are just the same as Extra Holidays so elimination will not happen...


----------



## 55plus

As long as the prime location and timeframe restrictions stay in place the mega renters are out of business.


----------



## paxsarah

55plus said:


> As long as the [insert recent changes here] stay in place the mega renters are out of business.


...is probably what people thought and said each time over the last 13+ years when Wyndham made changes to inconvenience megarenters.


----------



## 55plus

One can only hope this time Wyndham delt them a deathblow.


----------



## tschwa2

55plus said:


> One can only hope this time Wyndham delt them a deathblow.


There are still a lot of holes.  
Glacier canyon is only on the list for MLK and presidents day weekends, Spring Break, Easter and Memorial Day.
3 ski resorts are listed for
JAN. 1-17, 2022 & FEB. 13-21, 2022  
You would think they would at least put the the other weekends.

There are a lot of other desirable locations for rentals not on the lists.


----------



## VacayKat

tschwa2 said:


> There are still a lot of holes.
> Glacier canyon is only on the list for MLK and presidents day weekends, Spring Break, Easter and Memorial Day.
> 3 ski resorts are listed for
> JAN. 1-17, 2022 & FEB. 13-21, 2022
> You would think they would at least put the the other weekends.
> 
> There are a lot of other desirable locations for rentals not on the lists.


And there are a lot of folks like me who go somewhere at least once a month who could book a guest at the same time with no loss, only benefit. Would actually make renting more comfortable to me as I’d be able to meet the person and they’d know who they were screwing over if they did bad things. And as a side benefit, would actually make it less likely Wyndham would identify it as renting. Win-win, lol.

Folks forget how resourceful people are when they want to earn a living. (Or pay for massive MF )


----------



## chapjim

CO skier said:


> There is also this for context



The context is he had a real estate rental business before he ever did anything with timeshares.  Too bad you are too blinded by contempt to see a simple truth.

Context, my whatever.


----------



## chapjim

ilya said:


> Wasn't the Klebbla lawsuit over the 67 million points they own?  They should have never been allowed to aquire this many points... Wyndham allowed it and looked the other way... Why? As I stated above someone high up in the company must have had a personal interest.... Or else it could have been stopped...I have seen corporate emails that were forward to former employees on new changes happening...All I am saying is some of the megarenters could have been somehow affiliated with Wyndham.. New management takes over and rules start to be enforced..
> 
> Whether the points are in one account or spread out , someone has control of a lot of points... This goes for the same as Point Managers.. They have control over 10 plus million point + accounts... They can easily manipulate the system with that many points , even if they are in multiple owners... So, in reality, these PM should also be eliminated...I am not saying Wyndham should do that but should be treated as all the other megaenters... I can see how PM are just the same as Extra Holidays so elimination will not happen...



Were the 67 million points all in one account?  The utility of 67 million points would have been severely reduced if it were.  How many people can be making reservations simultaneously on one account?

We've heard a lot over the last few years about how "stovepiped" was Wyndham's corporate organization. With that in mind, it's not hard to believe that the minimum wage clerks processing resale contracts would not inform supervisors about the activity.  The clerks had no way of knowing that someone was accumulating tens of millions of points.  Not having been informed, the mid-level execs didn't know anything was amiss.  Upper level management was probably sales-oriented, trying to figure out how to boost sales and working on their golf games. 

Can conspiracy be ruled out?   Of course not but there are easier answers.  Don't attribute to malfeasance that which can be explained by stupidity/neglect/incompetence.  Something like that anyway!


----------



## dgalati

chapjim said:


> Were the 67 million points all in one account?  The utility of 67 million points would have been severely reduced if it were.  How many people can be making reservations simultaneously on one account?
> 
> We've heard a lot over the last few years about how "stovepiped" was Wyndham's corporate organization. With that in mind, it's not hard to believe that the minimum wage clerks processing resale contracts would not inform supervisors about the activity.  The clerks had no way of knowing that someone was accumulating tens of millions of points.  Not having been informed, the mid-level execs didn't know anything was amiss.  Upper level management was probably sales-oriented, trying to figure out how to boost sales and working on their golf games.
> 
> Can conspiracy be ruled out?   Of course not but there are easier answers.  Don't attribute to malfeasance that which can be explained by stupidity/neglect/incompetence.  Something like that anyway!


Software solves any stupidity problems if the guys in charge were paying attention. IMHO Wyndham is responsible for selling millions of VIP packages on the promise that they could rent and cover all maintenance fees. They are the ones that sold this strategy to owners to abuse the loophole of renting for commercial use.


----------



## dgalati

chapjim said:


> The context is he had a real estate rental business before he ever did anything with timeshares.  Too bad you are too blinded by contempt to see a simple truth.
> 
> Context, my whatever.


Do you really believe this or are you trying to justify your own rental business?


----------



## dgalati

55plus said:


> One can only hope this time Wyndham delt them a deathblow.


Not very likely but a man can hope.


----------



## dgalati

Lets all be happy!


----------



## ronparise

dgalati said:


> Software solves any stupidity problems if the guys in charge were paying attention. IMHO Wyndham is responsible for selling millions of VIP packages on the promise that they could rent and cover all maintenance fees. They are the ones that sold this strategy to owners to abuse the loophole of renting for commercial use.


Im sure you are correct, the guys in charge didnt know what was going on, They set policy and the troops were expected to carry it out. The problem was (in my view) that there were no troops tasked with keeping an eye on renting much less stopping it,  Sales was expected to sell, the transfer dept was supposed to transfer deeds and ownerships, the customer service people were there to serve the customers,  They didnt know it but Their jobs were to help me become a bigger, better megarenter.


----------



## ronparise

dgalati said:


> Not very likely but a man can hope.


I said it after I was, (as CoSkier" said)  booted out, Someone would come along, and because no one told him it couldnt be done, figure out another way to dance among the rules and find a new way to make some money renting timeshares. and it happened.. Wyndham has another group of megarenters to boot out.  And if I live long enough I expect Ill see the cycle repeat itself again


----------



## am1

ronparise said:


> I said it after I was, (as CoSkier" said)  booted out, Someone would come along, and because no one told him it couldnt be done, figure out another way to dance among the rules and find a new way to make some money renting timeshares. and it happened.. Wyndham has another group of megarenters to boot out.  And if I live long enough I expect Ill see the cycle repeat itself again



As long as money can be made or possibly be made people will continue to rent as a business.  Is there even enough owners that want to go to Bike Week or Mardi Gras etc?  Even if those dates get filled by owners what about the off season weeks that are popular by a small group but not always Wyndham Owners.  Think college football games, Super Bowl, spring training, Wrestlemania and the like to start.


----------



## ronparise

CO skier said:


> There is also this for context




The point is that wyndhan didnt "give me the boot"  for that commercial activity ...They were well and truly pissed that I had sold them stripped contracts, and what they to make sure I never did it again was to buy the  contracts I still owned  and other contracts that I had under contract for more than what I paid for them... (a lot more)   The big thing that separated what I was doing from what a legitimate business owner would do is that I had no exit plan; that is until wyndhan provided me with one

I may have not been a legitimate business man, but Wyndhan treated me like one.


----------



## CO skier

chapjim said:


> The context is he had a real estate rental business before he ever did anything with timeshares.  Too bad you are too blinded by contempt to see a simple truth.
> 
> Context, my whatever.


Context.

Anyone who is interested, should look back to the posts in this thread around #501 and #503 (page 21) for the context of the discussion and reach your own conclusion (which should be obvious).

Anyone who visited the Wyndham forum between about 2012 and 2016-2017 could not miss that ronparise was running a Wyndham rental business.  It was tedious.




chapjim said:


> The context is he had a real estate rental business before he ever did anything with timeshares.



It must be clear by now, that you are the only one to hold that opinion.  Reread post #503 and please quote anything in that post that would give any indication that the post was  about anything other than Wyndham and his Wyndham rental business.

Here, to save you the trouble of looking it up, is the post to reread:


ronparise said:


> I already had a rental business and I was smart enough not to read the contract
> Wyndham is still making gravy, and In confident that as long as there are reservations that cost under 1000 in mf, that can be rented for $2000...rentals are going to happen. Thats how I started and I bet that someone will do it again
> 
> I got a call recently from a Wyndham salesman trying to get me into a presentation.. That aint supposed to happen. Im supposed to be on a list.  I may spend some time at a Wyndham resort and buy something.  Ill rescind  but before I do Ill dig into the new rules and see what I can see. .. An old guy with nothing but time ought to be able to find a way to make some money




What is the meaning of "the contract" in post #503 that he did not read? The Platinum VIP contract he signed with Wyndham, or _all_ the contracts in the "real estate rental business before he ever did anything with timeshares."  Highly unlikely he did not read the contracts in his private rental business.


----------



## CO skier

ronparise said:


> The big thing that separated what I was doing from what a legitimate business owner would do is that I had no exit plan;


You had an exit plan that you posted about (I am sure I could find the posts with a minimum of effort).

So, now you were maintaining a Wyndham rental business, it was just not as "a legitimate business owner would do?"

You can edit your post to save digging your hole deeper using your own words as a shovel.


----------



## am1

CO skier said:


> You had an exit plan that you posted about (I am sure I could find the posts with a minimum of effort).
> 
> So, now you were maintaining a Wyndham rental business, it was just not as "a legitimate business owner would do?"
> 
> You can edit your post to save digging your hole deeper using your own words as a shovel.


Does it matter? Whats done is done.  Hopefully there is still money in the bank and on to the next way to make 
money.


----------



## CO skier

am1 said:


> Does it matter? Whats done is done.  Hopefully there is still money in the bank and on to the next way to make
> money.


Exactly.

Why would ex-Wyndham-owner has-beens continue to post about their ex-Wyndham rental businesses 5 or more years later?


----------



## T-Dot-Traveller

CO skier said:


> You had an exit plan that you posted about (I am sure I could find the posts with a minimum of effort).
> 
> So, now you were maintaining a Wyndham rental business, it was just not as "a legitimate business owner would do?"
> 
> You can edit your post to save digging your hole deeper using your own words as a shovel.





DeniseM said:


> The thread is unlocked: If there are new posts that violate the TUG rules, please report by clicking "Report" at the bottom of the problem post.
> 
> To keep this thread open, please attack the issues, and not your fellow Tuggers.



- @CO skier -Please note these words of wisdom.

".....attack issues and not your fellow Tuggers"


----------



## am1

CO skier said:


> Exactly.
> 
> Why would ex-Wyndham-owner has-beens continue to post about their ex-Wyndham rental businesses?


For me to call it like it is.


----------



## CO skier

am1 said:


> Does it matter? Whats done is done.  Hopefully there is still money in the bank and on to the next way to make
> money.





am1 said:


> For me to call it like it is.



You answered your own question; apparently, for some obscure reason, "it matters."


----------



## CO skier

T-Dot-Traveller said:


> - @CO skier -Please note these words of wisdom.
> 
> ".....attack issues and not your fellow Tuggers"


Please explain your post.

Are you a pseudo moderator warning of something?

Or are you using the post by a moderator to imply, substantiate, insinuate something you do not want to post directly?  If there is anything I have not quoted correctly, then you have something to say.

Or do you think that quoting something someone posted in the past (even by minutes) is an attack on that same person who posted what they previously posted?  That would be suggesting someone is attacking him/herself.  Rare as it may be, I do not think that is against TUG rules.


----------



## bogey21

CO skier said:


> Why would ex-Wyndham-owner has-beens continue to post about their ex-Wyndham rental businesses 5 or more years later?


Because it is interesting history that helps understand the present...

George


----------



## ilya

dgalati said:


> Software solves any stupidity problems if the guys in charge were paying attention. IMHO Wyndham is responsible for selling millions of VIP packages on the promise that they could rent and cover all maintenance fees. They are the ones that sold this strategy to owners to abuse the loophole of renting for commercial use.


 In one instance people say" Wyndham is smart" they know what they are doing... Another time they say the left hand did not know what the right hand was doing... In my opinion they all knew and some took advantage with in the company for a profit...  I am sure if there was an investigation into former employees something can be tracked...Like I said, I've seen corporate emails forward to past employees for head up...

They also knew about this change years ago but did not tell anyone who were buying developer points in the assumption that their current resale points will become VIP. At every sale with a person with resale it should be spelled out in the contract that resale is not included... Not in the directory that no one reads or some just don't ever get..


----------



## 55plus

First, how many buyers read the contract prior to signing. Secondly, like you said it's spelled out in the directory. Lastly, never believe a sales weasel.


----------



## T-Dot-Traveller

55plus said:


> First, how many buyers read the contract prior to signing. ......


I didn't even read the fine print when I  signed up for a TUG membership.


----------



## HitchHiker71

T-Dot-Traveller said:


> I didn't even read the fine print when I  signed up for a TUG membership.



TUG memberships don't average 25-30k in price either.  When I signed my first developer contract while on vacation in June 2018 - I skimmed most of the document - and read the escape clause explicitly (the rescission clause) - then went back to our room and read almost the entire document set and then rescinded.  When I went back for another developer purchase using two PIC contracts a month later - I read everything cover to cover - but as I've said elsewhere - I'm not what many would consider a normal person.


----------



## Eric B

HitchHiker71 said:


> TUG memberships don't average 25-30k in price either.  When I signed my first developer contract while on vacation in June 2018 - I skimmed most of the document - and read the escape clause explicitly (the rescission clause) - then went back to our room and read almost the entire document set and then rescinded.  When I went back for another developer purchase using two PIC contracts a month later - I read everything cover to cover - but as I've said elsewhere - I'm not what many would consider a normal person.



Got my TUG membership resale for just $15!


----------



## T-Dot-Traveller

HitchHiker71 said:


> .......while on vacation in June 2018.........When I went back for another developer purchase using two PIC contracts a month later - I read everything cover to cover -
> 
> but as I've said elsewhere - I'm not what many would consider a normal person.


so I see you also joined TUG in June 2018.
So is that referred to as the " new normal "
LOL


----------



## HitchHiker71

T-Dot-Traveller said:


> so I see you also joined TUG in June 2018.
> So is that referred to as the " new normal "
> LOL



My better half would say that if I'm the "new normal" we're all in big trouble LOL.  

But yeah I joined TUG right after I signed my initial developer contract while vacationing in Myrtle Beach - and TUG was instrumental in my rescission and in my timeshare learning process.  As much as we may argue about megarenters of late - our primary mission here on TUG is to help those who come to us for help on how best to purchase and utilize timeshares - that is where we all find common ground and largely preach the same message without a doubt.


----------



## chapjim

CO skier said:


> Context.
> 
> Anyone who is interested, should look back to the posts in this thread around #501 and #503 (page 21) for the context of the discussion and reach your own conclusion (which should be obvious).
> 
> Anyone who visited the Wyndham forum between about 2012 and 2016-2017 could not miss that ronparise was running a Wyndham rental business.  It was tedious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It must be clear by now, that you are the only one to hold that opinion.  Reread post #503 and please quote anything in that post that would give any indication that the post was  about anything other than Wyndham and his Wyndham rental business.
> 
> Here, to save you the trouble of looking it up, is the post to reread:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the meaning of "the contract" in post #503 that he did not read? The Platinum VIP contract he signed with Wyndham, or _all_ the contracts in the "real estate rental business before he ever did anything with timeshares."  Highly unlikely he did not read the contracts in his private rental business.



I guess you missed this in Post #532 -- a response to one of your posts.  No one is denying that Ron Parise ran a rental business with Wyndham points, especially not Ron.  The issue is whether he had a rental business apart from Wyndham.  My post, which you objected to, said he did.  That set you off, it seems.

*I had been buying, selling and renting real estate since the the 1970's I so yea I had a realestate rental business.*. looking back on what I did buying selling and renting Wyndham timeshares was something else..Im calling it a hustle.. I knew it couldnt be sustained


----------



## T-Dot-Traveller

Eric B said:


> Got my TUG membership resale for just $15!


Can you transfer post-points between thread-buckets  with a resale TUG membership ?
Can you only like posts but not Love emogi them - due to resale restrictions on use  ?
Does a TUG resale membership allow you to run a commercial rental business in Marketplace?

LOL


----------



## erniecrews

HitchHiker71 said:


> TUG memberships don't average 25-30k in price either.  When I signed my first developer contract while on vacation in June 2018 - I skimmed most of the document - and read the escape clause explicitly (the rescission clause) - then went back to our room and read almost the entire document set and then rescinded.  When I went back for another developer purchase using two PIC contracts a month later - I read everything cover to cover - but as I've said elsewhere - I'm not what many would consider a normal person.


I read everything from cover to cover also and I consider myself a normal person, a little above average maybe.


----------



## frank808

rickandcindy23 said:


> @ronparise
> 
> I remember Steamboat Bill talking about his bargains with his developer purchases.  He almost had me talked into it, but I really just wanted the AP discount.  He talked about $89 per point with two years' fees covered and free usage.  He bought a lot of Disney.  I would bet he could get over $1,000,000 if he sold what he owned right now.   I miss Steamboat Bill.


What ever happened to him? I know he got banned on mouseowners though I do not know for what reason.  The last discussion I had with him was about that 2000 point OKW contract that sold at $32.50 a point.  Have not heard from him in 11 years.  Was he on TUG?


----------



## ronparise

CO skier said:


> You had an exit plan that you posted about (I am sure I could find the posts with a minimum of effort).
> 
> So, now you were maintaining a Wyndham rental business, it was just not as "a legitimate business owner would do?"
> 
> You can edit your post to save digging your hole deeper using your own words as a shovel.




AS I recall whenever I was asked about my exit plan all i could offer was to say... "I have an exit plan... Im gonna die. It will be Wyndhams problem then"
Ask any legitimate business owner if he or she thinks that that's a good plan, or a plan at all
If I ever posted otherwise it may have been my hope at the time, but looking back it would have had to be wishful thinking
I needed to find someone to take  my stripped contracts, an impossible task. 

But Wyndham solved it for me in 2016


----------



## 55plus

I enjoy setting sales weasels straight when they talk about how relatives have to inherit a timeshare and its fees, but they can fix that problem with a purchase. I will have owned mine for 40 years by the time I'll be ready to exit. My exit plan is to give it back or walk away if they don't want it.


----------



## ronparise

CO skier said:


> Context.
> 
> Anyone who is interested, should look back to the posts in this thread around #501 and #503 (page 21) for the context of the discussion and reach your own conclusion (which should be obvious).
> 
> Anyone who visited the Wyndham forum between about 2012 and 2016-2017 could not miss that ronparise was running a Wyndham rental business.  It was tedious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It must be clear by now, that you are the only one to hold that opinion.  Reread post #503 and please quote anything in that post that would give any indication that the post was  about anything other than Wyndham and his Wyndham rental business.
> 
> Here, to save you the trouble of looking it up, is the post to reread:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the meaning of "the contract" in post #503 that he did not read? The Platinum VIP contract he signed with Wyndham, or _all_ the contracts in the "real estate rental business before he ever did anything with timeshares."  Highly unlikely he did not read the contracts in his private rental business.




I actually said that the only part of the contract I signed with Wyndham that I read was the part that said i would become platinum VIP for $6000  Thats the only part I cared about. And as far as the rental properties I bought prior to my first Wyndham purchase, Not only didnt I read the small print, much of the time I didnt even go into the house.  I remember,  at one auction I attended  the tenant was at an open window. I asked her... you got heat?, Your rent up to date? She said yes.. That was enough for me, I bid on the property.

And one settlement where the seller was so pissed at me for demanding that he put some money in escrow to cover the next water bill, (that wasnt in any contract we had) that he came after me physically.  He actually stood up and  put his knee on the table to come across, to do what? I dont know. I told him to sit his little 5'6" self back down. I dont need to buy this stuff and I started to walk out (Im 6'1" 220) and although Ive never been in a fight (the physical kind)  I looked bad, and I guess mean .. At another property there had been a fire at the property the night before settlement, I asked that we delay settlement for a few hours to inspect the property.  and the seller started to cry. Turned out they were losing money on the property already and to cut the price any further... well it made her cry. When I told her that I might not buy it all, depending on what the damage was. She started to sob. I had no idea what the contract said on the matter

Back to my feelings about contracts generally,,,, they are only as strong as the parties willingness to enforce them.  I made the bet that Wyndham wouldnt enforce the commercial use clause in the directory and they didnt for the 5 years i was involved, until they did, But even then they came after me sideways, not directly  They accused me of somehow stealing points.    Once I made it clear that everything was for sale, they backed off and bought me out, I guess they didnt care what the contract said either.


----------



## ronparise

am1 said:


> For me to call it like it is.



Winston Churchill wrote, “Those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”
"George" bogey21   wrote.  Because it is interesting history that helps understand the present... 


I lived a little piece of Wyndhams ongoing battle against megarenting.  Adam was involved longer than i was.  Given whats happening in Wyndham World today I thought my experience might be interesting to some of you  If Im wrong at least Im in good company.

I am sorry Ive been distracted by the 5 year old, petty disagreements with CoSkier


----------



## WyndhamBarter

ronparise said:


> I started to walk out



Ron - I, for one, miss hearing your stories here on TUG.  Thanks for sharing this one and so many others.


----------



## ronparise

HitchHiker71 said:


> TUG memberships don't average 25-30k in price either.  When I signed my first developer contract while on vacation in June 2018 - I skimmed most of the document - and read the escape clause explicitly (the rescission clause) - then went back to our room and read almost the entire document set and then rescinded.  When I went back for another developer purchase using two PIC contracts a month later - I read everything cover to cover - but as I've said elsewhere - I'm not what many would consider a normal person.



most of my Wyndham contracts cost less than a tug membership


----------



## ronparise

frank808 said:


> What ever happened to him? I know he got banned on mouseowners though I do not know for what reason.  The last discussion I had with him was about that 2000 point OKW contract that sold at $32.50 a point.  Have not heard from him in 11 years.  Was he on TUG?



I dont know Steamboat Bill  unless he is Bill Spearman. I dont know him either, although I have read his work.


----------



## T-Dot-Traveller

55plus said:


> I enjoy setting sales weasels straight when they talk about how relatives have to inherit a timeshare and its fees, but they can fix that problem with a purchase. I will have owned mine for 40 years by the time I'll be ready to exit. My exit plan is to give it back or walk away if they don't want it.



Next time a weasel discusses / lies about inheriting TS - ask how they spell their full name and tell you want to make sure it is correctly spelled in your will- so they can inherit your deeded forever timeshare obligation.

FYI - the person who originally posted this on TUG - also said the presentation ended early as a result . So a win -win .


----------



## dgalati

Eric B said:


> Got my TUG membership resale for just $15!


I hear its also cheaper to rent from a VIP TUG member.


----------



## dgalati

ronparise said:


> most of my Wyndham contracts cost less than a tug membership


Closing costs included in purchase price.


----------



## dgalati

ronparise said:


> I actually said that the only part of the contract I signed with Wyndham that I read was the part that said i would become platinum VIP for $6000  Thats the only part I cared about. And as far as the rental properties I bought prior to my first Wyndham purchase, Not only didnt I read the small print, much of the time I didnt even go into the house.  I remember,  at one auction I attended  the tenant was at an open window. I asked her... you got heat?, Your rent up to date? She said yes.. That was enough for me, I bid on the property.
> 
> And one settlement where the seller was so pissed at me for demanding that he put some money in escrow to cover the next water bill, (that wasnt in any contract we had) that he came after me physically.  He actually stood up and  put his knee on the table to come across, to do what? I dont know. I told him to sit his little 5'6" self back down. I dont need to buy this stuff and I started to walk out (Im 6'1" 220) and although Ive never been in a fight (the physical kind)  I looked bad, and I guess mean .. At another property there had been a fire at the property the night before settlement, I asked that we delay settlement for a few hours to inspect the property.  and the seller started to cry. Turned out they were losing money on the property already and to cut the price any further... well it made her cry. When I told her that I might not buy it all, depending on what the damage was. She started to sob. I had no idea what the contract said on the matter
> 
> Back to my feelings about contracts generally,,,, they are only as strong as the parties willingness to enforce them.  I made the bet that Wyndham wouldnt enforce the commercial use clause in the directory and they didnt for the 5 years i was involved, until they did, But even then they came after me sideways, not directly  They accused me of somehow stealing points.    Once I made it clear that everything was for sale, they backed off and bought me out, I guess they didnt care what the contract said either.


That's because they needed the free inventory to sell at $140+/1000. Even if they pd 10x the amount you paid it was a win for them. Nothing more then a business decision pay you or litigate and pay a lawyer. It was more then likely  cheaper to buy you out.


----------



## ronparise

dgalati said:


> Closing costs included in purchase price.


Yes

I had an agreement with a timeshare release company for a while. Anything they got with the Wyndham name on it, they offered me. I sent them a thumbs up and pretty soon there it was in my account


----------



## troy12n

dgalati said:


> I hear its also cheaper to rent from a VIP TUG member.



It's even cheaper to be a guest, and it allows you to receive snarky comments from certain forum members for being one to boot!


----------



## rickandcindy23

ronparise said:


> I dont know Steamboat Bill  unless he is Bill Spearman. I dont know him either, although I have read his work.


Not Bill Spearman.  Steamboat Bill was a100% Disney guy.  I appreciated his posts on Disney.


----------



## ronparise

dgalati said:


> That's because they needed the free inventory to sell at $140+/1000. Even if they pd 10x the amount you paid it was a win for them. Nothing more then a business decision pay you or litigate and pay a lawyer. It was more then likely  cheaper to buy you out.



yep, folks that have read what I’ve posted about this know that’s what I’ve been saying. Wyndham froze our accounts at about this time in 2016 and played around with a claim that they needed to do an audit (never did,) They never said a thing about renting or commercial activity only that I has more points in my account than my ownership justified. then theymade me an offer: I should sign everything back to them ($0.00) and they would agree not to sue me.

so I said bring it on

when I was invited to make a counter offer, I did At the time I only had had 10 million points but I had another 10 million moving  through the transfer department and another 5 million or so under contract

I counterd  with a million dollars $40/1000 points we settled at a number in between those two extremes.  Zero and a million.

Here’s what I think went into the “business decision” Wyndham made.  Wyndham at the time had a goal of building and buying resorts for under 16% of what they could sell the points for. I knew that from listening to the quarterly earnings calls. (Top  executives reported on earnings and took questions from the brokerage firms in a quarterly conference call). I also knew that (as you suggest) that they were haveing trouble creating and taking through ovation enough points to meet their sales goals.so buying back points became a thing

If they  could sell the points for $150/1000 they  could buy points at $25/1000 and meet their goals.

one of my arguments to Wyndham attorney was that even the stripped contracts i sold them helped with thei strategy. They were paying about $10/1000 points (I got about half of that)  Even if they had to wait 3 years to sell these points(and pay mf to the resorts for this 3 years they were “all in” at about $25/1000

ultimately what they got from me in our settlement; they paid me a little less than $25 per 1000 and the contracts they got  were not stripped of points


They also took my 500000 Worldmark credits in a second agreement. I was buying Worldmark contracts by assuming the debt and I owed about $200000 My strategy here was to pay off this stuff with what I was doing on the Wyndham side.  They started off offering to take it all back at 40 cents a credit. There was no question that I would do it. I couldn’t manage the debt without the club Wyndham money I was taking in.  so I agreeed and laughed. I told the lawyer that they had obviously done their homework because 40 cents  was exactly what I owed He laughed right back and said he made the offer to give me a little bit of money over what I owed ( only a little)

and here’s why I speak so highly of the lawyer I was negotiating with and the Wyndham executives he had to convince to do things his way. He came back a week later upping their offer to 50 cents a credit. They didnt have to do that and I didn’t ask for it but he knew  I was having trouble paying my bills with my Wyndham accounts frozen. That extra 10 cents  a credit carried me during the time after my accounts were frozen and before I got the money from the club Wyndham agreement. I should also add that Wyndham honored all the rentals I had I place for which I had been paid   I insisted that I had to take care of these folks. And just returning their money wouldn’t do it. They were more interested in the accommodations than the money. And Wyndham agreed   Those reservations were put into a corporate account and my folks were able to enjoy the vacations that they had paid me for

so yea, you might say it was nothing more than business. But it was business with a heart. We came to a deal where Wyndham got what they wanted and I did ok too


----------



## troy12n

500,000 WorldMark credits? holy cow

If you don't mind me asking, what was your total "nut" for MF's across all of your timeshare ownership?

I've never even heard of someone owning that much Worldmark


----------



## ronparise

Amon


troy12n said:


> 500,000 WorldMark credits? holy cow
> 
> If you don't mind me asking, what was your total "nut" for MF's across all of your timeshare ownership?
> 
> I've never even heard of someone owning that much Worldmark



you must not get out much

Of the guys that did worldmark rentals I was not very big in terms of the number of rentals only about 50/yr. my plan was to use Worldmark for myself. 4 months in SanFrancisco where my daughter lives and 4 months in San Diego  with my stepson and I’d pay the mf by continuing to do 40 or so Mardi Gras reservations

until not too many years ago a Worldmark owner could “rent” in to his account as many credits as he could find and pay for. There were companies set up to find owners points to rent. Now you can only rent in twice the number of point you own. Last I heard one guy I knew owned over a million. And he was still buying. Wyndham is going after Worldmark mega renters too. Interestingly the Worldmark docs specifically allow renting so they have to try to control renting with rule changes. The can’t just disallow it

I waspaying about $250000a year in maintenance fees in total


----------



## dgalati

ronparise said:


> Amon
> 
> 
> you must not get out much
> 
> Of the guys that did worldmark rentals I was not very big in terms of the number of rentals only about 50/yr. my plan was to use Worldmark for myself. 4 months in SanFrancisco where my daughter lives and 4 months in San Diego  with my stepson and I’d pay the mf by continuing to do 40 or so Mardi Gras reservations
> 
> until not too many years ago a Worldmark owner could “rent” in to his account as many credits as he could find and pay for. There were companies set up to find owners points to rent. Now you can only rent in twice the number of point you own. Last I heard one guy I knew owned over a million. And he was still buying. Wyndham is going after Worldmark mega renters too. Interestingly the Worldmark docs specifically allow renting so they have to try to control renting with rule changes. The can’t just disallow it
> 
> I waspaying about $250000a year in maintenance fees in total





ronparise said:


> Amon
> 
> 
> you must not get out much
> 
> Of the guys that did worldmark rentals I was not very big in terms of the number of rentals only about 50/yr. my plan was to use Worldmark for myself. 4 months in SanFrancisco where my daughter lives and 4 months in San Diego  with my stepson and I’d pay the mf by continuing to do 40 or so Mardi Gras reservations
> 
> until not too many years ago a Worldmark owner could “rent” in to his account as many credits as he could find and pay for. There were companies set up to find owners points to rent. Now you can only rent in twice the number of point you own. Last I heard one guy I knew owned over a million. And he was still buying. Wyndham is going after Worldmark mega renters too. Interestingly the Worldmark docs specifically allow renting so they have to try to control renting with rule changes. The can’t just disallow it
> 
> I waspaying about $250000a year in maintenance fees in total


At the end of the day both parties walked away happy At the time your buyout there may have been a few regrets but with recent changes to resale points and after the COVID shut down last year they did you a big favor. Wyndham did learn from the AUDIT and no one in the future will see the $ you walked away with.


----------



## troy12n

dgalati said:


> At the end of the day both parties walked away happy At the time your buyout there may have been a few regrets but with recent changes to resale points and after the COVID shut down last year they did you a big favor. Wyndham did learn from the AUDIT and no one in the future will see the $ you walked away with.



He got the golden parachute of timeshare bailouts... I guess if Wyndham wanted to make an example they could have just shut him down and make it incumbent on him to dispose of his stripped, worthless contracts himself.

250k in MF, wow...


----------



## dgalati

troy12n said:


> He got the golden parachute of timeshare bailouts... I guess if Wyndham wanted to make an example they could have just shut him down and make it incumbent on him to dispose of his stripped, worthless contracts himself.
> 
> 250k in MF, wow...


Wyndham settled knowing they had some culpability in creating the problem. Or they just needed a lot of cheap inventory at the time.


----------



## 55plus

dgalati said:


> Wyndham settled knowing they had some culpability in creating the problem. Or they just needed a lot of cheap inventory at the time.


How do we know Wyndham settled? I personally don't think Wyndham would settled as to not set a precedent, and they would have required a NDA. NDAs are standard procedures for corporations. The parties couldn't talking about their 'settlement' without violating the terms of the NDA, which usually makes the settlement moot and monies be returned. I'm just say'in.


----------



## dgalati

55plus said:


> How do we know Wyndham settled? I personally don't think Wyndham would settled as to not set a precedent, and they would have required a NDA. NDAs are standard procedures for corporations. The parties couldn't talking about their 'settlement' without violating the terms of the NDA, which usually makes the settlement moot and monies be returned. I'm just say'in.


Do you think they had some culpability in creating the mega-renter problem?


----------



## chapjim

55plus said:


> How do we know Wyndham settled? I personally don't think Wyndham would settled as to not set a precedent, and they would have required a NDA. NDAs are standard procedures for corporations. The parties couldn't talking about their 'settlement' without violating the terms of the NDA, which usually makes the settlement moot and monies be returned. I'm just say'in.



That there was a settlement might not have been part of the NDA.  The terms of the settlement are definitely covered (otherwise, no need for a NDA).  Ron has not said anything about the terms.  Only that it was somewhere between $0 and $1 million.


----------



## 55plus

dgalati said:


> Do you think they had some culpability in creating the mega-renter problem?


Probably to a point, but they will never admit it. That's why I don't believe there was a settlement. Admitting culpability opens the door for litigation and a settlement without an NDA would never happen in the corporate world. Corporate legal departments have NDAs written into their boilerplate. If you look at it through logic tables or a corporate lens you'll see that a settlement without a NDA wouldn't happen. And since a settlement is being bragged about there wasn't a NDA, therefore there wasn't a settlement in my opinion. Am I stirring the pot, probably.


----------



## raygo123

dgalati said:


> Do you think they had some culpability in creating the mega-renter problem?


No. Mega renters are a mere pimple on an elephant's back. They are taking care of things as they can. This is a total exaggeration in the scheme of things. And it's great press. 

Sent from my Lenovo TB-X103F using Tapatalk


----------



## 55plus

chapjim said:


> That there was a settlement might not have been part of the NDA.  The terms of the settlement are definitely covered (otherwise, no need for a NDA).  Ron has not said anything about the terms.  Only that it was somewhere between $0 and $1 million.


Talking about a settlement between $1 to $1M still violates an NDA. You can't say anything, so I don't believe there was a settlement. The only way one is able to talk about settlement is if there wasn't a settlement, meaning nothing happened. They may have allowed him to walk away or maybe he had to pay for points in the stripped contracts, or something in between. I can't see Wyndham paying an owner anything in a situation like this without a jury trial, in my opinion.


----------



## am1

55plus said:


> Probably to a point, but they will never admit it. That's why I don't believe there was a settlement. Admitting culpability opens the door for litigation and a settlement without an NDA would never happen in the corporate world. Corporate legal departments have NDAs written into their boilerplate. If you look at it through logic tables or a corporate lens you'll see that a settlement without a NDA wouldn't happen. And since a settlement is being bragged about there wasn't a NDA, therefore there wasn't a settlement in my opinion. Am I stirring the pot, probably.


Or in left field.  Or a different sport altogether.


----------



## ronparise

dgalati said:


> At the end of the day both parties walked away happy At the time your buyout there may have been a few regrets but with recent changes to resale points and after the COVID shut down last year they did you a big favor. Wyndham did learn from the AUDIT and no one in the future will see the $ you walked away with.


You need to understand that there was no audit

Wyndham made a number of rule changes after I a d others were bought out to make sure no one could do what we did again.

you are right. At the time and before we arrived at a settlement I was upset, I wanted to continue doing what I was doing for another 5 years or so. If nothing had changed I would ha e made more in thoss five years than I was paid in the buyout

but no one can have what they want when they want it all the time, and I think it was Mick Jagger that said. If you can’t have the one you love, love the one you're  with. . And Kenny Rodgers said "know when to hold them and know when to fold them". And I don’t know who said it but you have to play the hand you are dealt

Bottom line is that Wyndham made me an offer I couldn’t refuse  (The Godfather) I understood exactly who and  what I was dealing with so I got out while the getting was good. I didn’t regret it then and I dont regret it now

in my 75 years I can look back and see a lot of things I could have done differently but I have no regrets for having done the things Ive done

I still think  that Wyndham is fighting the last war. They expected me and the others caught up in the 2016 net to sue them like spearman et al did. We didn’t which forced Wyndham to come to us  now they are facing another group of mega renters doing things differently than Adam or I or the others from 2916 did. And I’m not sure what Wyndham is going to do,  it unless they bang renting altogether   It’s gonna happen again


----------



## ronparise

55plus said:


> Talking about a settlement between $1 to $1M still violates an NDA. You can't say anything, so I don't believe there was a settlement. The only way one is able to talk about settlement is if there wasn't a settlement, meaning nothing happened. They may have allowed him to walk away or maybe he had to pay for points in the stripped contracts, or something in between. I can't see Wyndham paying an owner anything in a situation like this without a jury trial, in my opinion.



again a contract is only as strong as the willingness of the parties to enforce if

that there was a settlement being discussed was common knowledge before my settlement  and NDA happened. Also I believe that I was one of the first to settled think the NDA was meant to prevent my settlement from being the model for those that followed. I don’t however think it worked.I believe, I don’t know, but I believe the settlements that happened before mine and those that followed mine were more favorable to the mega renters. To my knowledge I was the only guy that has nothing else, I had to settle, others didn’t


----------



## T-Dot-Traveller

ronparise said:


> again a contract is only as strong as the willingness of the parties to enforce if
> 
> that there was a settlement being discussed was common knowledge before my settlement  and NDA happened. Also I believe that I was one of the first to settled think the NDA was meant to prevent my settlement from being the model for those that followed. I don’t however think it worked.I believe, I don’t know, but I believe the settlements that happened before mine and those that followed mine were more favorable to the mega renters. To my knowledge I was the only guy that has nothing else, I had to settle, others didn’t



In the end Wyndham got ownership / inventory and you were paid  a sum ,that you accepted as "reasonable: for the inventory .
A successful  transaction for both parties.


----------



## VacayKat

55plus said:


> Talking about a settlement between $1 to $1M still violates an NDA. You can't say anything, so I don't believe there was a settlement. The only way one is able to talk about settlement is if there wasn't a settlement, meaning nothing happened. They may have allowed him to walk away or maybe he had to pay for points in the stripped contracts, or something in between. I can't see Wyndham paying an owner anything in a situation like this without a jury trial, in my opinion.


Actually the terms of what can and can not be revealed are part of the NDA. It can or cannot be as restrictive as you imply. It depends on what is agreed to. There is no standard one fits all NDA.


----------



## ronparise

VacayKat said:


> Actually the terms of what can and can not be revealed are part of the NDA. It can or cannot be as restrictive as you imply. It depends on what is agreed to. There is no standard one fits all NDA.




 There was not a separate NDA  but there was NDA language in our agreement

specifically

13. Confidentiality. Each Party hereto and their respective counsel, representatives
and agents agree that they will not disclose any of the terms of this Agreement or any amounts to
be paid pursuant to this Agreement.

So it seems to me that I am not prevented from saying an agreement happened, The terms and dollars paid, however, thats off limits


----------



## chapjim

55plus said:


> *Talking about a settlement between $1 to $1M still violates an NDA.* You can't say anything, so I don't believe there was a settlement. The only way one is able to talk about settlement is if there wasn't a settlement, meaning nothing happened. They may have allowed him to walk away or maybe he had to pay for points in the stripped contracts, or something in between. *I can't see Wyndham paying an owner anything in a situation like this without a jury trial, in my opinion.*



As a categorical statement, this is absolutely not true.  An NDA can be whatever the parties agree to.  And since you've undoubtedly not seen this particular NDA, I don't know how you can know what it says.

I think you have things exactly backward when it comes to identifying Wyndham's motivation to settle or go to trial.  If I understand Wyndham's _modus operandi_, it is precisely to avoid litigation that Wyndham settles.  Even if Wyndham were to win in court, a lot would come out in discovery and become part of the trial record that Wyndham doesn't want to become public.

One can have beliefs and opinions but the beliefs and opinions you express here are not supported.  They are just bare statements.


----------



## ronparise

55plus said:


> Talking about a settlement between $1 to $1M still violates an NDA. You can't say anything, so I don't believe there was a settlement. The only way one is able to talk about settlement is if there wasn't a settlement, meaning nothing happened. They may have allowed him to walk away or maybe he had to pay for points in the stripped contracts, or something in between. I can't see Wyndham paying an owner anything in a situation like this without a jury trial, in my opinion.




Yep, I may be violating the agreement. but that doesnt mean that an agreement dosent exist.  And I can assure you there was an agreement reached
 Its not up to you to enforce it.. Its up to Wyndham. .and they havent said anything to me yet


----------



## am1

ronparise said:


> again a contract is only as strong as the willingness of the parties to enforce if
> 
> that there was a settlement being discussed was common knowledge before my settlement  and NDA happened. Also I believe that I was one of the first to settled think the NDA was meant to prevent my settlement from being the model for those that followed. I don’t however think it worked.I believe, I don’t know, but I believe the settlements that happened before mine and those that followed mine were more favorable to the mega renters. To my knowledge I was the only guy that has nothing else, I had to settle, others didn’t


I got worked and knowingly so.  I had El Cid resale vip contracts, other resale vip contracts.  Then an over 1 million vip resale Las Vegas contract that I once almost turned into PR pre account freeze.  Got a good deal but contract was sent by  fedex to the co owner who had to go to us consulate to notarize the signature. After a few days I changed my mind.  Next time was during the freeze and tried to get it into a new contract so it would be vip forever.  Never went through as I guess my account was under review.  Sure enough during freeze Wyndham was aware my vip was resale. 

Then the change in reservations coming back and automatic upgrades were changed.  Living in a different country would make a lawsuit.

I owned 7 or 8 million points but had much more in my account as before transfers were stopped I had 10s of million of points transferred in from timeshareresalers. They kept getting pushed forward with different use years.  

I had to go 10 months without being able book reservations so I was forced to re t reservation below “cost” as I could not get discounts or upgrades.  That cost me millions in future reservations.  Say I had 100 million points to book reservations at full cost but in the end only use 15-20 million after cancellations and upgrades.  

Then there were a few other administrative errors made in cancelling reservations they should not have or combing accounts and putting me over the 10 reservations a night at each resorts.  I had to manually cancel reservations losing the guess confirmations and rebook in another account.  As Wyndham at the time washed their hands of it.  The computer could cancel reservations at anytime and then my guests would be without rooms.  

I failed in asking for favored nations stipulation in my contract.  Also failed by not asking for a weeks stay a year at a resort on the house.  

But it is what it is barring a subpoena from another owner.


----------



## Eric B

chapjim said:


> As a categorical statement, this is absolutely not true.  An NDA can be whatever the parties agree to.  And since you've undoubtedly not seen this particular NDA, I don't know how you can know what it says.
> 
> I think you have things exactly backward when it comes to identifying Wyndham's motivation to settle or go to trial.  If I understand Wyndham's _modus operandi_, it is precisely to avoid litigation that Wyndham settles.  Even if Wyndham were to win in court, a lot would come out in discovery and become part of the trial record that Wyndham doesn't want to become public.
> 
> One can have beliefs and opinions but the beliefs and opinions you express here are not supported.  They are just bare statements.



You can kind of guess who the actual attorneys rather than the sea lawyers are by how they post about legal issues here....


----------



## altiste1

I’ve been following this topic off and on for a while. I usually can’t get very far because I get tired of the vitriol and personal attacks that seem to have overtaken a normally civilized forum. What I still have not seen (and I’ll freely admit to having skipped a lot of this thread for the aforementioned reason) is an explanation of exactly how Wyndham’s business is harmed by the so-called megarenter. Wyndham is in the business of selling timeshare contracts, so at first blush it would seem that having a steady supply of fresh meat (I.e. renters who are unfamiliar with timeshares) who can be sent through the sales presentation sausage grinder would be a good  thing for Wyndham’s business.

I have a few ideas how megarenters might hurt but they don’t entirely convince me. Perhaps someone with greater business acumen or actual knowledge of the matter can comment.

Idea #1: inventory. Could there be enough magarenters that control enough points that Wyndham’s ability to recycle inventory for free is impinged to such an extent that it affects the bottom line? Megarenters profit(ed) from their points and thus wouldn’t be using Ovations to get rid of any points. Their supply of free inventory could be reduced, making them pay more to get back inventory. Perhaps that was enough to hurt Wyndham, even a little bit. But with hundreds of thousands of owners, it seems unlikely that a relative handful of megarenters would make a meaningful difference in inventory recycling.

Idea #2: Rental competition. Wyndham surely rents at least a portion of the inventory that it owns and megarenters might threaten that line of business  Perhaps the megarenters undercut prices on, or otherwise competed with Wyndham-sponsored rentals to the extent that this ate into profits. This also seems unlikely to me, as I doubt rental revenue is an important revenue stream to Wyndham, but I could be wrong about that.

Idea #3: owner experience. Could it be (as has been hotly debated here and elsewhere) that megarenters book prime resorts at prime times to such an extent that the typical owner - and let me state that I don’t view anyone reading this forum as a typical owner, as we are generally much better informed and often much more experienced - is so unable to book anything he or she would want that this typical owner would become highly disillusioned and not only never buy another point but also actively discourage everyone they know from ever buying from Wyndham as well? I think this too is unlikely. While I do think that megarenters may have some effect on availability, I doubt that the effect is terribly pronounced and likely not enough to make a typical owner deeply unsatisfied with the product. In addition, even if some (even many) existing owners are unsatisfied, how would all the poor souls in the sales presentations know about it? Despite TUG and other useful online resources, knowledge about timeshare ownership is not widespread and most people who buy retail do no research before doing so.  There is already a great deal of negative information out there about timeshares in general and Wyndham in particular so I doubt that this particular gripe would rise to the level of a gating issue for enough buyers to move the needle on Wyndham’s sales.

Whatever the impact on Wyndham’s bottom line, it cannot have been all that bad, because they allowed the situation to exist for many years without meaningful reform. I am skeptical that this is the massive problem it is said to be.

Instead, I have another theory.  The Covid shutdown caused a massive backup in demand that once travel restrictions were lifted simply wasn’t manageable. Far more people had points, time and inclination to travel than could possibly be accommodated. So Wyndham leadership felt they had to do something visible to avoid an owner revolt. Hence the one-time cancellation of all rentals was introduced to make owners feel like Wyndham was actually doing something. Then they went a step further and took aim at megarenters to further the narrative that they were effectively managing inventory, even though the actual effect of megarenters was minimal compared to the Covid surge. I think Wyndham may have scapegoated megarenters to give the appearance of effectiveness.

I’d be interested to hear others’ thoughts.


----------



## Eric B

altiste1 said:


> I’ve been following this topic off and on for a while. I usually can’t get very far because I get tired of the vitriol and personal attacks that seem to have overtaken a normally civilized forum. What I still have not seen (and I’ll freely admit to having skipped a lot of this thread for the aforementioned reason) is an explanation of exactly how Wyndham’s business is harmed by the so-called megarenter. Wyndham is in the business of selling timeshare contracts, so at first blush it would seem that having a steady supply of fresh meat (I.e. renters who are unfamiliar with timeshares) who can be sent through the sales presentation sausage grinder would be a good  thing for Wyndham’s business.
> 
> I have a few ideas how megarenters might hurt but they don’t entirely convince me. Perhaps someone with greater business acumen or actual knowledge of the matter can comment.
> 
> Idea #1: inventory. Could there be enough magarenters that control enough points that Wyndham’s ability to recycle inventory for free is impinged to such an extent that it affects the bottom line? Megarenters profit(ed) from their points and thus wouldn’t be using Ovations to get rid of any points. Their supply of free inventory could be reduced, making them pay more to get back inventory. Perhaps that was enough to hurt Wyndham, even a little bit. But with hundreds of thousands of owners, it seems unlikely that a relative handful of megarenters would make a meaningful difference in inventory recycling.
> 
> Idea #2: Rental competition. Wyndham surely rents at least a portion of the inventory that it owns and megarenters might threaten that line of business  Perhaps the megarenters undercut prices on, or otherwise competed with Wyndham-sponsored rentals to the extent that this ate into profits. This also seems unlikely to me, as I doubt rental revenue is an important revenue stream to Wyndham, but I could be wrong about that.
> 
> Idea #3: owner experience. Could it be (as has been hotly debated here and elsewhere) that megarenters book prime resorts at prime times to such an extent that the typical owner - and let me state that I don’t view anyone reading this forum as a typical owner, as we are generally much better informed and often much more experienced - is so unable to book anything he or she would want that this typical owner would become highly disillusioned and not only never buy another point but also actively discourage everyone they know from ever buying from Wyndham as well? I think this too is unlikely. While I do think that megarenters may have some effect on availability, I doubt that the effect is terribly pronounced and likely not enough to make a typical owner deeply unsatisfied with the product. In addition, even if some (even many) existing owners are unsatisfied, how would all the poor souls in the sales presentations know about it? Despite TUG and other useful online resources, knowledge about timeshare ownership is not widespread and most people who buy retail do no research before doing so.  There is already a great deal of negative information out there about timeshares in general and Wyndham in particular so I doubt that this particular gripe would rise to the level of a gating issue for enough buyers to move the needle on Wyndham’s sales.
> 
> Whatever the impact on Wyndham’s bottom line, it cannot have been all that bad, because they allowed the situation to exist for many years without meaningful reform. I am skeptical that this is the massive problem it is said to be.
> 
> Instead, I have another theory.  The Covid shutdown caused a massive backup in demand that once travel restrictions were lifted simply wasn’t manageable. Far more people had points, time and inclination to travel than could possibly be accommodated. So Wyndham leadership felt they had to do something visible to avoid an owner revolt. Hence the one-time cancellation of all rentals was introduced to make owners feel like Wyndham was actually doing something. Then they went a step further and took aim at megarenters to further the narrative that they were effectively managing inventory, even though the actual effect of megarenters was minimal compared to the Covid surge. I think Wyndham may have scapegoated megarenters to give the appearance of effectiveness.
> 
> I’d be interested to hear others’ thoughts.



Well said.  That follows my line of thinking quite closely.  Wyndham would likely prefer to have the bogeyman out there to blame tight inventory on and likely doesn’t truly care if people rent.


----------



## jebloomquist

altiste1 said:


> Wyndham leadership felt they had to do something visible to avoid an owner revolt. Hence the one-time cancellation of all rentals was introduced to make owners feel like Wyndham was actually doing something. Then they went a step further and took aim at megarenters to further the narrative that they were effectively managing inventory, even though the actual effect of megarenters was minimal compared to the Covid surge. I think Wyndham may have scapegoated megarenters to give the appearance of effectiveness.


This is the first time I have seen someone (Eric B) suggest something close to what I have been thinking.

Imagine if you will a gathering of the top management at Wyndham. "We have to do something about all these damn complainers. It's on TUG and elsewhere. In the long run it could affect our bottom line. The biggest complaint seems to be about what they call megarenters. In order to stop these complainers, we have to do something that appears to spank the megarenters. Hopefully, this will shut up these complainers. Okay, so what do we do? Well, let it be known that we are going to do something really bad to the megarenters. Then we will send out an intimidating letter to them. Who are they? Oh, just send letters to any owner who appears to be renting excessively. What do we do then? We just sit back and watch everybody bitch at each other until they are exhausted, not at us. It seems like a plan. What do we do next? Oh, don’t worry. This will give us at least a year before we have to do more, and the bulge in reservations do to COVID will hopefully be over.”


----------



## CO skier

altiste1 said:


> Instead, I have another theory.  The Covid shutdown caused a massive backup in demand that once travel restrictions were lifted simply wasn’t manageable. Far more people had points, time and inclination to travel than could possibly be accommodated. So Wyndham leadership felt they had to do something visible to avoid an owner revolt.


What would an "owner revolt" look like, other than the complaints about availability and availability for rent that is not available through online Club Wyndham inventory, which has been the case for more than a decade?

The introduction of automatic upgrades in 2017  effectively eliminated the practice of cancelling prime reservations booked at 13 months then rebooking the same reservation at a 50% discount or cancelling a studio and 4 bedroom Presidential within the VIP discount window and rebooking the 4 bedroom Presidential at 50% of the cost of the studio.

That change, arguably, had a greater effect on VIP megarenters than the 2021 changes to the VIP program.  The largest points manager operations were no longer viable.  The Covid-19 shutdowns had nothing to do with the Club Wyndham program changes in 2017 or 2008.  My theory is that the latest changes are just a continuation of the VIP changes first initiated in 2008 to limit as much as possible (not eliminate) megarenting.


----------



## jebloomquist

There are many complaints about the use of the VIP benefits. However, just how pervasive are they?

Wyndham, would you publish for us the percentages of total reservations that 1) are VIP upgraded, 2) are made with a VIP discount, and 3) both VIP discounted and VIP upgraded.

Give the same percentages for VIP owner reservations.

I am not sure what I would do with this information, but I really would like to see it.

With the current reservation system, I rarely get any VIP benefits. Fortunately for me, I have an abundance of points and do not need or rely on VIP benefits. A million here, a million there at 10 months works for me.


----------



## VacayKat

jebloomquist said:


> There are many complaints about the use of the VIP benefits. However, just how pervasive are they?
> 
> Wyndham, would you publish for us the percentages of total reservations that 1) are VIP upgraded, 2) are made with a VIP discount, and 3) both VIP discounted and VIP upgraded.
> 
> Give the same percentages for VIP owner reservations.
> 
> I am not sure what I would do with this information, but I really would like to see it.
> 
> With the current reservation system, I rarely get any VIP benefits. Fortunately for me, I have an abundance of points and do not need or rely on VIP benefits. A million here, a million there at 10 months works for me.


I mean if my last couple of years are any indication, the only upgrades I get are on weekend length stays (doesn't matter time of week), and probably has been like 2-3 total. Made with a discount? well since I like to book a lot of things last minute within driving distance if we feel like getting away, probably a few more of those, but again, they are still weekend length trips, so not a lot of discount or hotly contested resorts. but... I will say, if I can find a place that is last minute and has an upgrade, I think I've hit the jackpot - I got most of the upgrades that way, lol. - so like less than 5 in a year or 2? And dude, I'm founder's level, supposed to have first whack at all of those upgrades, so if that's my experience, guessing others are similar unless they really work the system.


----------



## Sandi Bo

CO skier said:


> What would an "owner revolt" look like, other than the complaints about availability and availability for rent that is not available through online Club Wyndham inventory, which has been the case for more than a decade?
> 
> The introduction of automatic upgrades in 2017  effectively eliminated the practice of cancelling prime reservations booked at 13 months then rebooking the same reservation at a 50% discount or cancelling a studio and 4 bedroom Presidential within the VIP discount window and rebooking the 4 bedroom Presidential at 50% of the cost of the studio.
> 
> That change, arguably, had a greater effect on VIP megarenters than the 2021 changes to the VIP program.  The largest points manager operations were no longer viable.  The Covid-19 shutdowns had nothing to do with the Club Wyndham program changes in 2017 or 2008.  My theory is that the latest changes are just a continuation of the VIP changes first initiated in 2008 to limit as much as possible (not eliminate) megarenting.


Speaking of "bogeyman"... I just have to chuckle at the mention of autoupgrades fixing an issue. Besides not working (you can see an eligible upgrade sitting there for days, call about it and be told someone else is eligible for it ahead of you - and yet anyone could directly book that room). Such a farce. And yet here we are 4 years later...

With Voyager (2017) upgrades became a black box. Trust Wyndham on how they work - HA.  If my memory serves me correctly, you are resale only?  So speaking about upgrade experiences is probably not in your wheelhouse.  Lost with voyager were some decent/reasonable upgrade paths. We now upgrade by occupancy (simple example, a 1BR Presidential upgrades to a 2 BR Deluxe - same amount of points, makes no sense and likely not what I want). They also segregate the accessible units from standard and limit some upgrades in that area. Eligible upgrades are lost.  

But you just go ahead and believe that auto upgrades fixed the cancel/rebook issue. Make sure you post that on FB, too.

Owner revolt - things sure look ugly to me.  Here and on FB. I don't know where rooms on travelocity, expedia, etc, come from. Over my head. But I don't think it's megarenters. And if it's not megarenters, who is it - doesn't it have to be Wyndham or a subsidiary somewhere - hidden layers beneath what you or I see? I do not believe there is much of a megarenter issue anymore. And yet, here we are, chasing that boogeyman. Pretty sure Wyndham is quite happy with how this is playing out.

If a megarenter issue was identified in 2008, how in the world can we still be talking about it?  Because Wyndham STILL has squishy rules and continues to lack transparency.


----------



## paxsarah

Sandi Bo said:


> But you just go ahead and believe that auto upgrades fixed the cancel/rebook issue. Make sure you post that on FB, too.


Auto upgrades did seem to fix cancel/rebook, but that’s a completely separate thing from whether auto upgrades themselves are working properly. Or at least, at the time Wyndham added auto upgrades, they also made it extraordinarily difficult to know when or whether your own cancellation would come back, in part due to the possibility of someone else’s auto upgrade. I haven’t heard anyone who disputes that (except this one guy on Facebook who insists he still rebooks his own cancellations, bless his heart). All that doesn’t mean that auto upgrades are working logically or consistently, just that the change served to thwart cancel/rebook.


----------



## Eric B

I'm not sure I would credit auto-upgrades with much of anything besides potentially reducing the costs of VIP benefits by limiting the number of actual upgrades.

It seems to me that there are more straightforward ways of fixing something like the cancel/rebook problem; similar potential methods of working the system are prevented in other systems - HGVC doesn't allow rebooking in Open Season of  cancelled reservations booked with Clubpoints and Vistana's new Vistana Escapes discounted booking (which is pretty limited) doesn't open up for reservations until after the window for cancellations without restrictions closes.

Ending the cancel/rebook problem for a rational organization would have been as simple as setting up the rules to prohibit reservations within the discount/upgrade window for stays cancelled in something like the last week or so to allow other owners the opportunity to book the availability.  That is, set it up so that if someone who is VIPP/F cancels at day 59, they can't rebook the same resort/unit (or upgrade into that unit type) until after day 52.  That would result in there being some value to planning ahead or the use of ARP, too, as well as offering better availability to other owners trying to book things.  Instead, what they did was set things up so that availability comes back at some random interval if it comes back at all and inconsistent upgrades that drive people to need to rebook stays in order to get the upgrades.  Much lower transparency that I find a bit annoying because I can't rely on the system actually working as it is laid out in the program guidelines.


----------



## Sandi Bo

paxsarah said:


> Auto upgrades did seem to fix cancel/rebook, but that’s a completely separate thing from whether auto upgrades themselves are working properly. Or at least, at the time Wyndham added auto upgrades, they also made it extraordinarily difficult to know when or whether your own cancellation would come back, in part due to the possibility of someone else’s auto upgrade. I haven’t heard anyone who disputes that (except this one guy on Facebook who insists he still rebooks his own cancellations, bless his heart). All that doesn’t mean that auto upgrades are working logically or consistently, just that the change served to thwart cancel/rebook.


We have this mysterious black box. It only has to work 1 out of 10 or 20 or 100 times, and people spread the news 'autoupgrades work, love them, thank you Wyndham'.
The randomness of the return of inventory is what stopped the cancelled/rebook. Although I've yet to hear Wyndham admit it's random. I don't get it. When asked at the last couple in-person owners meetings upper level management and senior owner care will tell you the system is real time. I think they believe it is.

True to from - random system behavior is Wyndham's mode of operation rather than well defined and enforcable rules.


----------



## chapjim

paxsarah said:


> Auto upgrades did seem to fix cancel/rebook, but that’s a completely separate thing from whether auto upgrades themselves are working properly. Or at least, at the time Wyndham added auto upgrades, *they also made it extraordinarily difficult to know when or whether your own cancellation would come back,* in part due to the possibility of someone else’s auto upgrade. I haven’t heard anyone who disputes that (except this one guy on Facebook who insists he still rebooks his own cancellations, bless his heart). All that doesn’t mean that auto upgrades are working logically or consistently, just that the change served to thwart cancel/rebook.



In my opinion, this was what killed cancel/rebook.  Was the uncertainty due to auto-upgrades?  Perhaps auto-upgrades were a contributing factor but I don't believe they were the sole factor.  And, I don't subscribe to the theory that cancellations were being sucked up by Extra Holidays.  I played around with that as have some others and it doesn't seem to be a supportable theory that would explain why cancellations don't reappear in inventory.

I canceled some odd reservations (e.g., Wednesday-Wednesday, way off-season) that I thought would be easy re-books.  Never saw them again -- next day, every day for a week, or until I gave up.  I don't believe they fulfilled someone's upgrade request.  There's something else going on.


----------



## raygo123

paxsarah said:


> Auto upgrades did seem to fix cancel/rebook, but that’s a completely separate thing from whether auto upgrades themselves are working properly. Or at least, at the time Wyndham added auto upgrades, they also made it extraordinarily difficult to know when or whether your own cancellation would come back, in part due to the possibility of someone else’s auto upgrade. I haven’t heard anyone who disputes that (except this one guy on Facebook who insists he still rebooks his own cancellations, bless his heart). All that doesn’t mean that auto upgrades are working logically or consistently, just that the change served to thwart cancel/rebook.


No, what fixed cancel/ rebook is the VC not being able to do it for you.

Sent from my Lenovo TB-X103F using Tapatalk


----------



## CO skier

Sandi Bo said:


> Speaking of "bogeyman"... I just have to chuckle at the mention of autoupgrades fixing an issue. Besides not working (you can see an eligible upgrade sitting there for days, call about it and be told someone else is eligible for it ahead of you - and yet anyone could directly book that room).


I think some people just read what they want to read.  If you reread my post, there is nothing about anything fixing anything, and there is nothing in the post about auto-upgrades working.



CO skier said:


> The introduction of automatic upgrades in 2017  effectively eliminated the practice of cancelling prime reservations booked at 13 months then rebooking the same reservation at a 50% discount or cancelling a studio and 4 bedroom Presidential within the VIP discount window and rebooking the 4 bedroom Presidential at 50% of the cost of the studio.







Sandi Bo said:


> With Voyager (2017) upgrades became a black box.


Cancellations dropping into a black box is what made the 2017 change so effective.


----------



## Sandi Bo

CO skier said:


> The introduction of automatic upgrades in 2017 effectively eliminated the practice of cancelling prime reservations booked at 13 months then rebooking the same reservation at a 50% discount or cancelling a studio and 4 bedroom Presidential within the VIP discount window and rebooking the 4 bedroom Presidential at 50% of the cost of the studio.
> 
> I think some people just read what they want to read.  If you reread my post, there is nothing about anything fixing anything, and there is nothing in the post about auto-upgrades working.
> 
> Cancellations dropping into a black box is what made the 2017 change so effective.



How wrong of me to infer that your comment that automatic upgrades in 2017 effectively eliminated cancel/rebook.  How silly of me to think you were implying automatic upgrades work.


----------



## CO skier

Sandi Bo said:


> ... infer ...
> 
> ... implying ...


That explains how you misread or misinterpreted my post.

Here is the definition of "eliminate" used in my post (nothing about "fixing" anything or auto-upgrades working)

"to remove from further competition by defeating"


My comment was also specific to 13-month reservations.  There have been posts that cancel/rebook is still possible, but not so much for 13-month reservations.


----------



## ronparise

When I started renting wyndham reservations, I didnt /couldnt  get discounted reservations, because I wasnt platinum VIP, but there were enough high value times and places that I could meet my modest goals

I will also note that Worldmark does not have a discount or upgrade program but they also do have  a mega renters problem

my point is that I didn’t need owner to owner transfers, discounts, upgrades, the credit pool or any other loophole, gimmick or theft to make some money within the Wyndham timeshare systems

as Adam and I have both said. As long as there is an opportunity to make a little money someone will try to take advantage  of it


----------



## ronparise

CO skier said:


> I think some people just read what they want to read.  If you reread my post, there is nothing about anything fixing anything, and there is nothing in the post about auto-upgrades working.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cancellations dropping into a black box is what made the 2017 change so effective.



If the changes made in 2017 were so effective, why is Wyndham fighting the same battle all over again?


----------



## CO skier

ronparise said:


> If the changes made in 2017 were so effective, why is Wyndham fighting the same battle all over again?


Anyone who thinks the changes in 2017 were not "effective" was not reading the TUG Wyndham Forum in 2017.  Probably Facebook, too.

I think Wyndham is trying to preserve the VIP discount window, so Wyndham whittles away at the megarenter problem.  If there was no VIP discount window, there would never have been an advantage to cancelling a reservation in the 60-day window and rebooking it.  Rather than eliminate the VIP discount window in 2017, Wyndham introduced auto-upgrades that captured cancellations.

Perhaps that did not limit megarenting to the extent Wyndham wished, and now instead of eliminating the VIP discount window, Wyndham restricted the VIP discount window to only qualified VIP points.

There is no silver bullet solution.  Wyndham will likely assess the effects of these latest changes.  There may or may not be more changes in the future.  That would not mean that past changes were not effective.


----------



## chapjim

CO skier said:


> <snip>
> 
> My comment was also specific to 13-month reservations.  There have been posts that cancel/rebook is still possible, but not so much for 13-month reservations.



I haven't seen any correlation between when I made a reservation and the probability of a successful cancel/re-book.  The probability of a successful cancel/re-book is so small to begin with.

Honestly, I can't remember the last time I tried to cancel and re-book.  Reservations have been so difficult lately that I'm just happy to have something!

I did find a reservation at Bonnet Creek in the discount window that matched a reservation I had made a while back.  But that was book (at a discount) and cancel.  Different thing.


----------



## Eric B

CO skier said:


> Anyone who thinks the changes in 2017 were not "effective" was not reading the TUG Wyndham Forum in 2017.  Probably Facebook, too.
> 
> I think Wyndham is trying to preserve the VIP discount window, so Wyndham whittles away at the megarenter problem.  If there was no VIP discount window, there would never have been an advantage to cancelling a reservation in the 60-day window and rebooking it.  Rather than eliminate the VIP discount window in 2017, Wyndham introduced auto-upgrades that captured cancellations.
> 
> Perhaps that did not limit megarenting to the extent Wyndham wished, and now instead of eliminating the VIP discount window, Wyndham restricted the VIP discount window to only qualified VIP points.
> 
> There is no silver bullet solution.  Wyndham will likely assess the effects of these latest changes.  There may or may not be more changes in the future.  That would not mean that past changes were not effective.



That's a very generous interpretation.  A more cynical one would be that Wyndham is shifting their marketing dollars to whatever the new subscription based program they will be starting next month.  We will see what happens in the future, but it seems like none of the changes are expanding the benefits for current VIPs, so you can call me a cynic.


----------



## VacayKat

Sandi Bo said:


> I don't know where rooms on travelocity, expedia, etc, come from. Over my head. But I don't think it's megarenters. And if it's not megarenters, who is it - doesn't it have to be Wyndham or a subsidiary somewhere - hidden layers beneath what you or I see? I do not believe there is much of a megarenter issue anymore. And yet, here we are, chasing that boogeyman. Pretty sure Wyndham is quite happy with how this is playing out.


According to Extra Holidays, both owner and wyndham rentals they control are listed on those AND more sites. May be a lot of the same availability, may not. That I do not know.


----------



## CO skier

chapjim said:


> I haven't seen any correlation between when I made a reservation and the probability of a successful cancel/re-book.  The probability of a successful cancel/re-book is so small to begin with.


That is a testament, then, to the widespread effectiveness of the change in 2017.


----------



## chapjim

CO skier said:


> That is a testament, then, to the widespread effectiveness of the change in 2017.



Certainly, no argument there but I don't get your thirteen month comment.  I haven't seen any difference and can't think why there would be.


----------



## Manzana

What I am confused about is when people say VIP is definitely not worth it for the price people pay for it then they are cheering when the benefits for VIPs are reduced and say the VIPs have been fortunate and should just deal with it.  Even resale getting VIP benefits in my opinion is something that most not all people paid alot of money for.  Just a little rant. Probably wrong thread but in reading everything I just feel that there is much complaining on all sides without a thought of what the others might have had to deal with or the money they spent to get where they are. Of course there are loopholes but that is a small percentage in total.


----------



## CO skier

chapjim said:


> Certainly, no argument there but I don't get your thirteen month comment.  I haven't seen any difference and can't think why there would be.


In 2017, it was clear that cancel/rebook ended for 13-month reservations (and 10-month, too, but I did not want to complicate the post -- some people still got confused, simple as it was), so I limited my post to 13-month reservations.


I read this in 2017



ecwinch said:


> The irony here is that - since they did not implement a waitlist - cancel/rebook still survives for the smallest units.
> 
> It is just cancel/rebook/upgrade that gets a lot more difficult.


which led me to believe that cancel/rebook was not completely undone.  Apparently, cancel/rebook was effectively abolished.  I posted only what I knew.


----------



## CO skier

Manzana said:


> Of course there are loopholes but that is a small percentage in total.


Cancel/rebook and cancel-cancel-rebook-upgrade-rebook repeat was a "loophole" of unbelievable proportions.  There were posts about entire towers at Bonnet Creek being rented out using the scams.


----------



## ronparise

troy12n said:


> He got the golden parachute of timeshare bailouts... I guess if Wyndham wanted to make an example they could have just shut him down and make it incumbent on him to dispose of his stripped, worthless contracts himself.
> 
> 250k in MF, wow...



I think Wyndham did make an example of me. There were two of us that talked to each other every step of the way. There were days when we had back to back appointments with the lawyer We were both offered the same “first offer” and we agreed on the number we would accept from Wyndham. The lawyer knew that I had usually just hung up with this other guy before I called in. We got the same price for our points. The “example” if that’s what it was was to let others caught in the same net. know,  that dealing with Wyndham wasn’t a bad thing and that you will do better with Wyndham working with them than working against them

and the only thing that made my contracts worthless is that Wyndham had frozen my accounts  As long as the credit pool was left alone the contracts had value


----------



## ronparise

55plus said:


> How do we know Wyndham settled? I personally don't think Wyndham would settled as to not set a precedent, and they would have required a NDA. NDAs are standard procedures for corporations. The parties couldn't talking about their 'settlement' without violating the terms of the NDA, which usually makes the settlement moot and monies be returned. I'm just say'in.


 
as someone else pointed out, an agreement between the parties is just that an “agreement between the parties”. By that I mean the parties can agree to anything. If there is anything that is “standard procedure” In a contract it’s that there is an “ upon violation clause” included In my case there was a confidentiality clause and a penalty spelled out for violation it, but the penalty upon violation was small. I pretty much honored the confidentiality clause out of respect for the individuals I was dealing with at Wyndham, not a possible ipenalty


----------



## raygo123

ronparise said:


> I think Wyndham did make an example of me. There were two of us that talked to each other every step of the way. There were days when we had back to back appointments with the lawyer We were both offered the same “first offer” and we agreed on the number we would accept from Wyndham. The lawyer knew that I had usually just hung up with this other guy before I called in. We got the same price for our points. The “example” if that’s what it was was to let others caught in the same net that dealing with Wyndham wasn’t a bad thing and that you will do better with Wyndham working with them than working against them
> 
> and the only thing that made my contracts worthless is that Wyndham had frozen my accounts the accounts. As long as the credit pool was left alone the contracts had value


You were not made an example at all. All Wyndham had to do was to enforce the rules if they really wanted to make an example of you. Let you dangling in the wind with all your points. The only reason they didn't, the system would not let them. Now that they can, Wyndham is not. They are even giving everyone with resale points a gimmie? That's . They just want you all to go away. To drag any of you accross the coals does not warrant the time of day. Wyndham even had the good sense of honoring your commitments to you renters, potential owners. What would Wyndham gain? No one outside the maybe 39,000 Facebook people would even know about it. 

All if you are now a footnote. When Wyndham used to have a bad rental problem.

Sent from my Lenovo TB-X103F using Tapatalk


----------



## ronparise

CO skier said:


> Anyone who thinks the changes in 2017 were not "effective" was not reading the TUG Wyndham Forum in 2017.  Probably Facebook, too.
> 
> I think Wyndham is trying to preserve the VIP discount window, so Wyndham whittles away at the megarenter problem.  If there was no VIP discount window, there would never have been an advantage to cancelling a reservation in the 60-day window and rebooking it.  Rather than eliminate the VIP discount window in 2017, Wyndham introduced auto-upgrades that captured cancellations.
> 
> Perhaps that did not limit megarenting to the extent Wyndham wished, and now instead of eliminating the VIP discount window, Wyndham restricted the VIP discount window to only qualified VIP points.
> 
> There is no silver bullet solution.  Wyndham will likely assess the effects of these latest changes.  There may or may not be more changes in the future.  That would not mean that past changes were not effective.



I don’t mean to imply that the auto upgrades weren’t effective in limiting cancel / rebook it was. My comment, although I   wasn’t clear, goes to another question

elimination of cancel and rebook should have ended large scale renting for profit. Except for certain high value reservations, my understanding and experience is that rental profit derives from the half price reservations. So my question better stated, is. What  have the current mega renters (the 65 million point couple) been doing to profit since the end of cancel rebook?


----------



## ronparise

raygo123 said:


> You were not made an example at all. All Wyndham had to do was to enforce the rules if they really wanted to make an example of you. Let you dangling in the wind with all your points. The only reason they didn't, the system would not let them. Now that they can, Wyndham is not. They are even giving everyone with resale points a gimmie? That's . They just want you all to go away. To drag any of you accross the coals does not warrant the time of day. Wyndham even had the good sense of honoring your commitments to you renters, potential owners. What would Wyndham gain? No one outside the maybe 39,000 Facebook people would even know about it.
> 
> All if you are now a footnote. When Wyndham used to have a bad rental problem.
> 
> Sent from my Lenovo TB-X103F using Tapatalk



I agree completely

my point was that Wyndham might have used me to convince others at the time that it made more sense to get out than fight

and to your point, “when Wyndham had a bad rental problem”: why are the still fighting this “problem” if the problem is in the past


I don’t think the problem is or was rentals at al.I think the problem is that the system is effectively oversold
Not actually oversold, I mean everyone can get a reservation somewhere. It may be at Fairfield Glade when you really wanted the beach but you can get a reservation so it’s not really oversold. But that doesn’t matter. If an owner can’t get what he wants, when he wants it there will be complaints and sales will suffer


and rentals are a convenient boogeyman man. In fact it really doesn’t matter if an owner or a renter is staying in the unit next to yours. What matters is you couldn’t get a second reservation at the last minute for a friend or family member. When you get to the resort and see a renter, not another owner you get pissed. And might complain


----------



## 55plus

Manzana said:


> What I am confused about is when people say VIP is definitely not worth it for the price people pay for it then they are cheering when the benefits for VIPs are reduced and say the VIPs have been fortunate and should just deal with it.  Even resale getting VIP benefits in my opinion is something that most not all people paid alot of money for.  Just a little rant. Probably wrong thread but in reading everything I just feel that there is much complaining on all sides without a thought of what the others might have had to deal with or the money they spent to get where they are. Of course there are loopholes but that is a small percentage in total.


VIP will pay for itself over time if you use discount point reservations. The more discount point reservations you get, the sooner it pays for itself. We're VIPP going on 30 years. It paid for itself many times over. We travel mainly to Florida for about 6 months a year during the winter months. Plenty of availability in the winter months equates to plenty of discounted reservations. It's all about how you use it. Do the math to see if it works for you.


----------



## paxsarah

55plus said:


> We're VIPP going on 30 years.


Also, VIP bought 30 years ago is far more likely to have paid for itself than VIP bought today. The buy-in has increased and the benefits have decreased. It will take far longer for a VIP buying in today to ever break even.


----------



## Manzana

I am VIPG just dropped from VIPP due to bonus points.   I see the value and it has come close to paying for itself if I consider upgrades and discounts. When I can get a 4 bedroom presidential at Desert Blue for a week for half the price of a studio i make a big dent in the break even points.  I have found I was able to do this or something similar many times.   Over the last 2 years.  I am not a mega renter but I do use the benefits to my ability.   RTs are saved when there is a similar unit available at 60 days and now again if a better unit or even the same unit is available at 45 days with a discount and upgrade.  I also like others make speculative reservations 10 months out. If a popular location has a unit available I will be on at midnight (9pm PST) to make sure I can secure the unit then will discuss with my family where we want to go.   Sometimes holding the unit for months even up to the cancellation deadline because we are not sure where we are going or if we might just change our minds and take a cruise.  The main point is Be careful what you are asking for because first they may reduce benefits for VIP owners but next they may reduce benefits of Resale Owners.   Then where would all of us Tuggers be?


----------



## paxsarah

If your bonus points just dropped off then you were still grandfathered under the most recent old VIP levels. Imagine having to buy another 100,000 points direct from Wyndham and not having unlimited housekeeping credits, then calculating your break-even point.


----------



## Manzana

paxsarah said:


> If your bonus points just dropped off then you were still grandfathered under the most recent old VIP levels. Imagine having to buy another 100,000 points direct from Wyndham and not having unlimited housekeeping credits, then calculating your break-even point.


Yes when those changes were made it made me stop telling my friends that if they wanted to go VIP I would help them figure out the most cost efficient way to saying that It was not worth the investment IMHO.   I can only hope that the benefits do not get reduced any more and somehow improve in the years to come.


----------



## am1

I said multiple times that platinum could work for a high use owner or a group.  But  With not allowing resale points to get benefits the math does not work for anyone other then maybe a small purchase to get from gold to platinum.


----------



## bnoble

ronparise said:


> to your point, “when Wyndham had a bad rental problem”: why are the still fighting this “problem” if the problem is in the past


I've been thinking about this.

I don't think the goal needs to be "eliminate the renting problem." Instead, I suspect there are two main goals. First: add enough friction that it is not easy to drastically undercut Wyndham's rental pricing for prime season times at high-profile resorts. Second: have a few policies to point to when an owner complains that they can't book something but the same thing is available for rental.

The first goal is almost certainly a moving target. Eliminating cancel-rebook put a sizeable dent in some of the larger operations. Some still exist, but they have significantly higher pricing. More importantly, it reset the expectations in some corners of the world of what a "reasonable" price should be. For example, in the days of cancel-rebook, the Disneyana crowd assumed they'd always be able to get a 2BR at Bonnet Creek any time of year for fire sale prices---and, for the most part, they were correct. After the inventory management process changed, that expectation was adjusted, and no longer exists. It took a little while, and there are still some people who think the old days exist, but mostly folks have caught up.

That additional friction didn't completely eliminate renting. There are some high-profile resorts/weeks that are profitable even at full freight---some (but not all) of those are now on the verboten list. A few folks pivoted to focus more on short-term bookings/rentals; rather than book in advance and rebook inside 60 days, just wait until 60 days and scour looking for things others cancel at high-demand resorts. That's more work, and may not be quite as lucrative, but given most of the rest of the world doesn't plan vacations a year in advance, still works pretty well--especially if you can leverage your acquisition costs by building a Platinum account and then bulking up with cheap, low-fee resale points. The partitioning of resale/retail adds more friction to that process, by instantly ratcheting up everyone's cost basis.

People are clever, and money can be a big motivator, so some folks will find another way to make the juice worth the squeeze even in the new world. But, it will be harder to do and with fewer opportunities.

The second goal is more about simple optics, and I think the verboten list is probably enough for that. I'm not sure how important the second goal even is to club management; maybe not all that much.


----------



## Eric B

bnoble said:


> I've been thinking about this.
> 
> I don't think the goal needs to be "eliminate the renting problem." Instead, I suspect there are two main goals. First: add enough friction that it is not easy to drastically undercut Wyndham's rental pricing for prime season times at high-profile resorts. Second: have a few policies to point to when an owner complains that they can't book something but the same thing is available for rental.
> 
> The first goal is almost certainly a moving target. Eliminating cancel-rebook put a sizeable dent in some of the larger operations. Some still exist, but they have significantly higher pricing. More importantly, it reset the expectations in some corners of the world of what a "reasonable" price should be. For example, in the days of cancel-rebook, the Disneyana crowd assumed they'd always be able to get a 2BR at Bonnet Creek any time of year for fire sale prices---and, for the most part, they were correct. After the inventory management process changed, that expectation was adjusted, and no longer exists. It took a little while, and there are still some people who think the old days exist, but mostly folks have caught up.
> 
> That additional friction didn't completely eliminate renting. There are some high-profile resorts/weeks that are profitable even at full freight---some (but not all) of those are now on the verboten list. A few folks pivoted to focus more on short-term bookings/rentals; rather than book in advance and rebook inside 60 days, just wait until 60 days and scour looking for things others cancel at high-demand resorts. That's more work, and may not be quite as lucrative, but given most of the rest of the world doesn't plan vacations a year in advance, still works pretty well--especially if you can leverage your acquisition costs by building a Platinum account and then bulking up with cheap, low-fee resale points. The partitioning of resale/retail adds more friction to that process, by instantly ratcheting up everyone's cost basis.
> 
> People are clever, and money can be a big motivator, so some folks will find another way to make the juice worth the squeeze even in the new world. But, it will be harder to do and with fewer opportunities.
> 
> The second goal is more about simple optics, and I think the verboten list is probably enough for that. I'm not sure how important the second goal even is to club management; maybe not all that much.



Good thoughtful analysis.  I would add as a third goal shifting the marketing expenditures from the VIP discounts/upgrades that had formerly supported a lot of the former rental activities to whatever the new Travel + Leisure subscription program becomes.


----------



## troy12n

Which they won't be able to do anymore with VIP discounts within the 60 day window... too bad, so sad. Unless they buy millions of points at full retail cost.


----------



## CO skier

bnoble said:


> ... especially if you can leverage your acquisition costs by building a Platinum account and then bulking up with cheap, low-fee resale points.


You mean like a VIP Platinum/Founders account with an additional 64 million-ish resale points like the Klebba's, who obviously would never use even a reasonable fraction for their own personal vacations?

Similar to the points managers who went out of business in 2017 with the elimination of cancel/rebook/upgrade, these will be the type of megarenters most affected by the August change to VIP benefits due to the loss of the VIP discount (and any potential instant upgrades) on resale points and unlimited free housekeeping associated with those resale points reservations.

(Profitability) "Friction" is a good way to convey the effects on megarenter businesses in 2017 and 2021, but it is an understatement; in some cases, such as the multi-million points+ owners offloading through Ebay, more like a hitting a brick wall at full speed instead of tapping the brakes (friction).


----------



## CO skier

ronparise said:


> and to your point, “when Wyndham had a bad rental problem”: why are the still fighting this “problem” if the problem is in the past


Anyone can post anything (you obviously know this, and have).

Please cite anything from Wyndham that would indicate Wyndham thinks the megarenter "problem is in the past."


----------



## raygo123

CO skier said:


> Anyone can post anything (you obviously know this, and have).
> 
> Please cite anything from Wyndham that would indicate Wyndham thinks the megarenter "problem is in the past."


That was a comment from my post. I suggest a re read of ALL the posts.

Sent from my Lenovo TB-X103F using Tapatalk


----------



## raygo123

CO skier said:


> Anyone can post anything (you obviously know this, and have).
> 
> Please cite anything from Wyndham that would indicate Wyndham thinks the megarenter "problem is in the past."


It is now in the past. As long as Travel and leisure enforces the rules, and has the ability to enforce the rules it is behind them. Wyndham can't stop rentals. Wyndham can't define commercial. Wyndham can now enforce many more rules on the cheap. If your going to rent it's going to be by the rules. Or at least the ones that can be enforced. That's it. As far as Wyndham is concerned, case Closed. The IT department can handle it from here. At least club membership still transfers when sold for just $299.



Sent from my Lenovo TB-X103F using Tapatalk


----------



## ronparise

CO skier said:


> Anyone can post anything (you obviously know this, and have).
> 
> Please cite anything from Wyndham that would indicate Wyndham thinks the megarenter "problem is in the past."



I dont understand your comment, I have no idea what wyndham thinks or did think about their "rental problem" What I read here has convinced me that Wyndham is acting as if they have a rental problem

My comment was in response to this post:  


raygo123 said:


> All if you are now a footnote. *When Wyndham used to have a bad rental problem.*
> 
> Sent from my Lenovo TB-X103F using Tapatalk



Raygo seems to think Wyndham used to have a rental problem, and my question was to him, So why dont you ask him to post something to back up his position.  Understand I dont agree with Raygo here, I agree with you


----------



## ronparise

bnoble said:


> I've been thinking about this.
> 
> I don't think the goal needs to be "eliminate the renting problem." Instead, I suspect there are two main goals. First: add enough friction that it is not easy to drastically undercut Wyndham's rental pricing for prime season times at high-profile resorts. Second: have a few policies to point to when an owner complains that they can't book something but the same thing is available for rental.



This is what Ive been trying to say, You say it clearly and concisely

Wyndham has not tried to eliminate rentals,  They want to control renting  for the reasons you outline


----------



## dgalati

bnoble said:


> I've been thinking about this.
> 
> I don't think the goal needs to be "eliminate the renting problem." Instead, I suspect there are two main goals. First: add enough friction that it is not easy to drastically undercut Wyndham's rental pricing for prime season times at high-profile resorts. Second: have a few policies to point to when an owner complains that they can't book something but the same thing is available for rental.
> 
> The first goal is almost certainly a moving target. Eliminating cancel-rebook put a sizeable dent in some of the larger operations. Some still exist, but they have significantly higher pricing. More importantly, it reset the expectations in some corners of the world of what a "reasonable" price should be. For example, in the days of cancel-rebook, the Disneyana crowd assumed they'd always be able to get a 2BR at Bonnet Creek any time of year for fire sale prices---and, for the most part, they were correct. After the inventory management process changed, that expectation was adjusted, and no longer exists. It took a little while, and there are still some people who think the old days exist, but mostly folks have caught up.
> 
> That additional friction didn't completely eliminate renting. There are some high-profile resorts/weeks that are profitable even at full freight---some (but not all) of those are now on the verboten list. A few folks pivoted to focus more on short-term bookings/rentals; rather than book in advance and rebook inside 60 days, just wait until 60 days and scour looking for things others cancel at high-demand resorts. That's more work, and may not be quite as lucrative, but given most of the rest of the world doesn't plan vacations a year in advance, still works pretty well--especially if you can leverage your acquisition costs by building a Platinum account and then bulking up with cheap, low-fee resale points. The partitioning of resale/retail adds more friction to that process, by instantly ratcheting up everyone's cost basis.
> 
> People are clever, and money can be a big motivator, so some folks will find another way to make the juice worth the squeeze even in the new world. But, it will be harder to do and with fewer opportunities.
> 
> The second goal is more about simple optics, and I think the verboten list is probably enough for that. I'm not sure how important the second goal even is to club management; maybe not all that much.


*Friction - Wikipedia*
conflict or animosity caused by a clash of wills, temperaments, or opinions.
"a considerable amount of *friction between* a few Wyndham TUG posters"


----------



## 55plus

dgalati said:


> *Friction - Wikipedia*
> conflict or animosity caused by a clash of wills, temperaments, or opinions.
> "a considerable amount of *friction between* a few Wyndham TUG posters"


The issue is the words being used in the posts. In case you haven't heard, the bird is the word:


----------



## dgalati

55plus said:


> The issue is the words being used in the posts. In case you haven't heard, the bird is the word:


You sure its not grease? I think @ronparise was playing the cow bell in this song and @COSkier1 was protesting the dancing skills of Ron's as a hustle and unfair advantage to him.


----------



## Ernie McClellan

jebloomquist said:


> This is the first time I have seen someone (Eric B) suggest something close to what I have been thinking.
> 
> Imagine if you will a gathering of the top management at Wyndham. "We have to do something about all these damn complainers. It's on TUG and elsewhere. In the long run it could affect our bottom line. The biggest complaint seems to be about what they call megarenters. In order to stop these complainers, we have to do something that appears to spank the megarenters. Hopefully, this will shut up these complainers. Okay, so what do we do? Well, let it be known that we are going to do something really bad to the megarenters. Then we will send out an intimidating letter to them. Who are they? Oh, just send letters to any owner who appears to be renting excessively. What do we do then? We just sit back and watch everybody bitch at each other until they are exhausted, not at us. It seems like a plan. What do we do next? Oh, don’t worry. This will give us at least a year before we have to do more, and the bulge in reservations do to COVID will hopefully be over.”



I like where you are going here…the reality is that owners of real property have certain rights. I think we also know that if actual owners where on these Wyndham boards policies would better embrace full usage of property rights. I am not a Wyndham owner, so I have no skin in this game, but it definitely seems as if their actions could be more for optics than their actual concern about renters. I would be willing to bet that sales people are still suggesting rentals as a benefit of timeshare ownership…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 55plus

dgalati said:


> ron parise was playing the cow bell in this song


We need more cowbell...


----------



## ilya

Ernie McClellan said:


> I like where you are going here…the reality is that owners of real property have certain rights. I think we also know that if actual owners where on these Wyndham boards policies would better embrace full usage of property rights. I am not a Wyndham owner, so I have no skin in this game, but it definitely seems as if their actions could be more for optics than their actual concern about renters. I would be willing to bet that sales people are still suggesting rentals as a benefit of timeshare ownership…
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk




They sure are... Just today as a matter of fact... But in their new rental program ....


----------



## Ernie McClellan

ilya said:


> They sure are... Just today as a matter of fact... But in their new rental program ....



Ahhh. I see. Makes sense. Is the new rental program setup to align with market rates? Or will it barely cover MFs?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## vv813

got goodwill point adjustment showing last night (showing on point summary page under next year, as developer) -not sure how they calculate this figure.


----------



## Eric B

vv813 said:


> got goodwill point adjustment showing last night (showing on point summary page under next year, as developer) -not sure how they calculate this figure.



I believe they calculate it by taking your average annual resale point total and multiplying it by the percentage discount you get at 60 days (VIPF = 60%, VIPP = 50%, VIPG = 35%, VIPB = 25%).  I'm VIPG and the amount I got was 35% of (my annual resale points + 1/2 my biannual resale points), which gave me a bit more than I would have gotten if they just used the 2022 use year points since I have some EOYO resale points in there.


----------



## CO skier

In 2021 jebloomquist said:


> With the current reservation system, I rarely get any VIP benefits. Fortunately for me, I have an abundance of points and do not need or rely on VIP benefits. A million here, a million there at 10 months works for me.





In Feb 2015 ronparise said:


> And of course if every cancellation goes to the waiting list...that would put an end to the cancel and rebook scam





Replied in 2015 jebloomquist said:


> If that *ever* *happens* [put and end to VIP cancel rebook scam], I am going to dump 4 million points ASAP.


Will the real jebloomquist please stand up and post with some consistency?


----------



## happyhopian

CO skier said:


> Anyone who thinks the changes in 2017 were not "effective" was not reading the TUG Wyndham Forum in 2017.  Probably Facebook, too.
> 
> I think Wyndham is trying to preserve the VIP discount window, so Wyndham whittles away at the megarenter problem...



_[Deleted.]_

Straight up - are you OK with Wyndham acting as a rental agent? I want to book a certain resort and it's not available. Hasn't been for months but I can get it on Extra Holidays for an outrageous cost. THAT'S OK WITH YOU?!? So tell me this Colorado man, HOW is Wyndham renting units out ANY different than XYZ owner renting units out?

You do realize that with the points they TAKE BACK, they are putting them into Extra Holiday's until they re-sell them from their trust accounts....a benefit they get from holding the management contracts (which were never intended to put them in a place to compete against owners hence the fiduciary relationship they have in that role as a manager). In fact, can you tell me when Extra Holiday's started? Look it up - I did. It wasn't part of their original plans and therefore couldn't have been conceived as excluded from their obligations as manager of the trusts and properties.

Before you guess, I am not a mega renter. Never have been. Yes I get frustrated when I can't get rentals and I've blamed them too ...

_[Deleted.]_

Open your eyes - WYNDHAM DOESN'T WANT YOU HAPPY! THEY WANT YOU TO GIVE THE POINTS BACK TO THEM AT NO COST SO THEY CAN SELL THEM TO THE NEXT GUY/GAL.

I read with interest recently about Wyndham possibly exercising ROFR which Disney and others have done for years. Why would they do that when they are getting boat loads for free following two recessions in the last decade where people couldn't use nor afford their points? Think that over and consider two things. How many billion of FREE points do you think they got back in the last decade and for which they have in trust now where they can rent out as they see fit? They wouldn't be buying anything unless the profit on rental and resale is significantly profitable. That is all speculation from me, but I do know that I always ask the sales folks how business is while I bide my time to get through the update and over the last few years they have all told me it's not as good as it use to be. As a publicly traded company Wyndham has to press for higher profits NOT the satisfaction of owners who's exit from the system actually increases their margin by donating to their rental/trust/resale program.

Now, I'm going to go back to finding out why I can't get my points to show up correctly after their amazing change to thwart a bunch of people in hopes of improving Wyndham's profits - or maybe you still think this is all about owner satisfaction for a group of people who have no say, and can't get out unless they just GIVE their points back. Enjoy what you have today.

_*Moderator Note*: This post was reported for over-the-top personal attacks, which have been deleted. This editing will serve as a reminder to adhere to the "Be Courteous" TUG rule or risk suspension. <-- SueDonJ_


----------



## ronparise

CO skier said:


> Will the real jebloomquist please stand up and post with some consistency?


People change their mind, adapt, or just temper their views over time, and move on, at least most do. Jim’s posts are 5 years apart I wouldn’t expect them to be the same


----------



## scootr5

ronparise said:


> People change their mind, adapt, or just temper their views over time, and move on, at least most do. Jim’s posts are 5 years apart I wouldn’t expect them to be the same



Wait, what?! How dare you have the audacity to re-evaluate and change your position/mind 5 years later?


----------



## troy12n

happyhopian said:


> Straight up - are you OK with Wyndham acting as a rental agent? I want to book a certain resort and it's not available. Hasn't been for months but I can get it on Extra Holidays for an outrageous cost. THAT'S OK WITH YOU?!?



At the end of the day, Wyndham owns all this stuff and they can do whatever the hell they want with their property... it would be like, if you owned a home, and wanted to sell it, but your neighbor sues you to try to prevent it from being sold because they don't potentially want someone they don't like, or share "values" with, moving in

It's been proven time and time again that they aren't taking any inventory for these blackout dates, and what they do with the units/inventory they own outside of "the club", which, is substantial, is theirs to do with as they please. Pretty much the only things that end up on Extra Holidays is stuff nobody wants. But I don't know how many times this has to be proven.

Some of you just don't want to hear it though, and formulate vast conspiracies as to why Wyndham is the bad guy here, yet, at the same time praising the likes of RonPraise and the other mega renters... it's really bizzarely pied piper or stockholm syndrome going on here


----------



## Eric B

troy12n said:


> At the end of the day, Wyndham owns all this stuff and they can do whatever the hell they want with their property... it would be like, if you owned a home, and wanted to sell it, but your neighbor sues you to try to prevent it from being sold because they don't potentially want someone they don't like, or share "values" with, moving in
> 
> It's been proven time and time again that they aren't taking any inventory for these blackout dates, and what they do with the units/inventory they own outside of "the club", which, is substantial, is theirs to do with as they please. Pretty much the only things that end up on Extra Holidays is stuff nobody wants. But I don't know how many times this has to be proven.
> 
> Some of you just don't want to hear it though, and formulate vast conspiracies as to why Wyndham is the bad guy here, yet, at the same time praising the likes of RonPraise and the other mega renters... it's really bizzarely pied piper or stockholm syndrome going on here



Um, no; that’s a gross conceptual error.  Wyndham manages the system for the owners, either deeded CWS or trust owners in CWA.  They have some ownership of unsold inventory and occasionally set up things on an uneven field between themselves and the other actual owners.

Back to ignoring.  Checking every once in a while is a weakness I really should avoid.


----------



## chapjim

troy12n said:


> To manipulate the rental price... of course.
> 
> See also: collusion, price fixing, cartel's
> 
> It's easier for a handful of people with common goals to set the market price, than 20-30 people with independent goals



A cartel is an association whose members agree to (1) fix prices at an artificially high level or (2) reduce production to maintain prices at an artificially high level, or (3) both.  

Cartels are notoriously unstable because a cartel member can increase profits by (1) reducing prices below the agreed level or (2) increasing production above the agreed level, or (3) both.  Someone with facility with supply and demand curves can demonstrate this.  I used to be able to -- no longer.  I studied Antitrust Law under Judge Douglas Ginsburg, an absolute master in a classroom.


----------



## troy12n

Eric B said:


> Um, no; that’s a gross conceptual error.  Wyndham manages the system for the owners, either deeded CWS or trust owners in CWA.  They have some ownership of unsold inventory and occasionally set up things on an uneven field between themselves and the other actual owners.
> 
> Back to ignoring.  Checking every once in a while is a weakness I really should avoid.



No, what i'm saying is factually accurate. Wyndham has inventory that exists outside of the CWS/CWA/CWP umbrella and they can do with it whatever they want. This has been established... whether or not you choose to believe it or not is your choice. Like believing in mythical sky creatures or unicorns or omnipotent figures in books, your choice


----------



## chapjim

troy12n said:


> At the end of the day, Wyndham owns all this stuff and they can do whatever the hell they want with their property... it would be like, if you owned a home, and wanted to sell it, but your neighbor sues you to try to prevent it from being sold because they don't potentially want someone they don't like, or share "values" with, moving in
> 
> *It's been proven time and time again that they aren't taking any inventory for these blackout dates*, and what they do with the units/inventory they own outside of "the club", which, is substantial, is theirs to do with as they please. Pretty much the only things that end up on Extra Holidays is stuff nobody wants. But I don't know how many times this has to be proven.
> 
> Some of you just don't want to hear it though, and formulate vast conspiracies as to why Wyndham is the bad guy here, yet, at the same time praising the likes of RonPraise and the other mega renters... it's really bizzarely pied piper or stockholm syndrome going on here



So far as I know, it has been demonstrated (not proven) once -- by me.  Not time and time again, at least not that has been posted on TUG.

Otherwise, I agree 100%.  Wyndham manages the program to benefit Wyndham.  Wyndham is fortunate to have the poor, abused, and misused small owner so they can spin what the are doing.

I don't like what Wyndham has done but I'm not calling Wyndham a bad guy -- just cynical and disingenuous.  Wyndham management's goal is to maximize shareholder value.  What happens to little guys and mega-renters is incidental.


----------



## troy12n

chapjim said:


> I don't like what Wyndham has done but I'm not calling Wyndham a bad guy -- just cynical and disingenuous.  Wyndham management's goal is to *maximize shareholder value.*  What happens to little guys and mega-renters is incidental.



And that's different from any other publicly traded corporation how, exactly... 

Newslfash, it's not. Every corporation's goal is to maximize shareholder value, at any cost. The difference between Wyndham and other companies is the consumers (us) actually get a good product in return. Despite all the whining and crying from some on here, including you.


----------



## chapjim

troy12n said:


> And that's different from any other publicly traded corporation how, exactly...
> 
> Newslfash, it's not. Every corporation's goal is to maximize shareholder value, at any cost. The difference between Wyndham and other companies is the consumers (us) actually get a good product in return. Despite all the whining and crying from some on here, including you.



I never said or implied that maximizing shareholder value was a goal unique to Wyndham.  While we're at it, every company that survives does so because they have a product or service that meets consumer demand.  Wyndham's product is not unique in that manner either.

Saying you don't like something isn't whining or crying.


----------



## raygo123

troy12n said:


> And that's different from any other publicly traded corporation how, exactly...
> 
> Newslfash, it's not. Every corporation's goal is to maximize shareholder value, at any cost. The difference between Wyndham and other companies is the consumers (us) actually get a good product in return. Despite all the whining and crying from some on here, including you.


Anything that enhances my ownership is positive. The only thing important to me is to enhance my ownership. Anytime someone else looses an advantage over me. It's a win. Everytime another owner, especially a renter total number of points is reduced is a win, for me. If there is no longer collusion with people who will accept stripped contracts it's a win, for me. I have no desire to sit in my underwear at 72 and run a shady business at best. What I can't believe is Wyndham is rewarding those with hundreds of thousands of points.

You should sell off all your Access points and pull all your deeds out of the Club and bid Wyndham farewell. That way you will no longer have that monkey on your back. 

Or you cannot accept the complimentary points and sue the crap out of Wyndham. With all the reasons all have come up with I'm sure you will win.

Sent from my Lenovo TB-X103F using Tapatalk


----------



## ronparise

troy12n said:


> At the end of the day, Wyndham owns all this



At the end of the day Wyndham owns very little of this stuff, certainly not all of it


----------



## comicbookman

troy12n said:


> At the end of the day, Wyndham owns all this stuff and they can do whatever the hell they want with their property... it would be like, if you owned a home, and wanted to sell it, but your neighbor sues you to try to prevent it from being sold because they don't potentially want someone they don't like, or share "values" with, moving in
> 
> It's been proven time and time again that they aren't taking any inventory for these blackout dates, and what they do with the units/inventory they own outside of "the club", which, is substantial, is theirs to do with as they please. Pretty much the only things that end up on Extra Holidays is stuff nobody wants. But I don't know how many times this has to be proven.
> 
> Some of you just don't want to hear it though, and formulate vast conspiracies as to why Wyndham is the bad guy here, yet, at the same time praising the likes of RonPraise and the other mega renters... it's really bizzarely pied piper or stockholm syndrome going on here


While I agree with most of the above, your reaction to " megarenters" is the same as thecreaction to wyndham of those you complain about.


----------



## CO skier

happyhopian said:


> _[Deleted.]
> 
> 
> [Deleted.]
> 
> 
> *Moderator Note*: This post was reported for over-the-top personal attacks, which have been deleted. This editing will serve as a reminder to adhere to the "Be Courteous" TUG rule or risk suspension. <-- SueDonJ_


Dang.  It seems I always miss out on moderated posts. 

I am sure what was deleted was more interesting than what was left.

Somewhat reminiscent of the strange posts that are occassionally self-deleted by the originator, but live on as "deleted" and there are 20 posts about "what was it about?"









						deleted
					

\




					tugbbs.com
				






(No criticism of moderation; just "miss an hour on TUG and miss the world).


----------



## CO skier

scootr5 said:


> Wait, what?! How dare you have the audacity to re-evaluate and change your position/mind 5 years later?


Were 4 million points dumped ASAP in 2017 when cancel/rebook was essentially eliminated, and millions of points reacquired between 2017 and now?

Then, OK; change of mind.

Somehow I doubt that is what transpired, so it was nothing but a sensational, empty posting in 2015 (as were so many postings during that timeframe).


----------



## CO skier

happyhopian said:


> Open your eyes - WYNDHAM DOESN'T WANT YOU HAPPY!


There will be a lot more happy owners taking their family on an end-of-year holiday at Bonnet Creek this year and in 2022 thanks to the changes compared to years past, just as one example.

Why the CAPS?  Are you unhappy with the owner positive changes?

Take your family on any of the Owner Prioritized vacations.


----------



## raygo123

ronparise said:


> At the end of the day Wyndham owns very little of this stuff, certainly not all of it


Wyndham owns all of what really matters, "the club". Without the club all you would own is "a" timeshare here a timeshare there etc. Yes Wyndham may not own every unit, but if you want to play in their back yard it is Wyndham's swing set. And they own all of it. 

Sent from my Lenovo TB-X103F using Tapatalk


----------



## ronparise

raygo123 said:


> Wyndham owns all of what really matters, "the club". Without the club all you would own is "a" timeshare here a timeshare there etc. Yes Wyndham may not own every unit, but if you want to play in their back yard it is Wyndham's swing set. And they own all of it.
> 
> Sent from my Lenovo TB-X103F using Tapatalk


I agree with that completely, Wyndham owns what matters  Technically of course  the club is not owned, Wyndham manages it and seems to have a lock on the management contract but as you suggest, that’s all that counts

when Wyndham came after me and the others in 2016 their initial email to us, I think, said it all “As manager of the Fairshare trust….”

i read your comment as saying that since Wyndham owns the timeshares they can do what ever they want with what they own (ie rent it)  I don’t think that right because  I was an owner too and I couldn’t do what I wanted

if that’s not what you meant, I’m sorry, but  consistency in the enforcement of the rules is important  and that’s why I think that Wyndham never said that what I was doing was wrong.  There were several  things that enabled me to do what I did and make over a million dollars in just five years with no investment
1) easy and cheap  VIP
2) cheap points from the timeshare relief companies 
3) cancel and rebook 
4) the credit pool
5) Wyndham’s need for points to sell, without the need to build new resorts

but forget all those loopholes and discounts, The single most important thing to me was the miss allocation of points at certain resorts  at  certain times. For example my favorite Mardi Gras.  The 4 day weekend before Mardi Gras Tuesday in a studio (sleeps 4) at Avenue Plaza is the same price as the 4 day weekend  after Mardi Gras. (81000 points) And that’s just nuts. I could rent that Mardi Gras reservation for 3 times my mf

The point is I would still be renting Wyndham timeshare if not for wyndhams “selective enforcement of the rules and their attitude that (as you said) they own this stuff and can do whatever they want


----------



## raygo123

ronparise said:


> I agree with that completely, Wyndham owns what matters Technically of course the club is not owned, Wyndham manages it and seems to have a lock on the management contract but as you suggest, that’s all that counts
> 
> when Wyndham came after me and the others in 2016 their initial email to us, I think, said it all “As manager of the Fairshare trust….”
> 
> i read your comment as saying that since Wyndham owns the timeshares they can do what ever they want with what they own (ie rent it) I don’t think that right because I was an owner too and I couldn’t do what I wanted
> 
> if that’s not what you meant, I’m sorry, but consistency in the enforcement of the rules is important and that’s why I think that Wyndham never said that what I was doing was wrong. There were several things that enabled me to do what I did and make over a million dollars in just five years with no investment
> 1) easy and cheap VIP
> 2) cheap points from the timeshare relief companies
> 3) cancel and rebook
> 4) the credit pool
> 5) Wyndham’s need for points to sell, without the need to build new resorts
> 
> but forget all those loopholes and discounts, The single most important thing to me was the miss allocation of points at certain resorts at certain times. For example my favorite Mardi Gras. The 4 day weekend before Mardi Gras Tuesday in a studio (sleeps 4) at Avenue Plaza is the same price as the 4 day weekend after Mardi Gras. (81000 points) And that’s just nuts. I could rent that Mardi Gras reservation for 3 times my mf
> 
> The point is I would still be renting Wyndham timeshare if not for wyndhams “selective enforcement of the rules and their attitude that (as you said) they own this stuff and can do whatever they want


You have myself and another poster combined. 

Sent from my Lenovo TB-X103F using Tapatalk


----------

