# Could Marriott do what Starwood is doing?



## gmarine (Oct 2, 2009)

Recently Starwood implemented a new exchange system with II that does not allow owners to deposit the their home resort reservation with Interval. Starwood now controls the week deposited and together with II has designated all weeks the same trading power. For example, at Sheraton Desert Oasis an owner with a week 1-52 floating unit has Gold Plus trading power regardless of the fact that they can reserve a platinum season week.
The have also taken away the ability to do a request first exchange with II. Now, when making a request, your home resort reservation has to be canceled. Its ridiculous and the system stinks.

Starwood owners, including myself, are getting together to fight Starwood on this. 

However, it got me thinking. I'm also a Marriott owner, and if Starwood gets away with this could Marriott make an attempt at this as well? 

Thoughts?


----------



## billymach4 (Oct 2, 2009)

*You never know? But I don't think so....*

This can't be ruled out for Marriott. I would tend to think that MVCI HQ is standing by the sidelines watching and waiting to see how this plays out with Starwood. 

That being said the folks that paid big bucks for Platinum weeks at locations like Hilton Head, Hawaii, Ocean Point, Beach Place, NCV, Aruba and the list goes on... will have a lynch mob outside MVCI HQ. I personally can't see Marriott hoping to pull this off. Also the Marriott network of resorts and units is so much larger that Starwood. Easier for Starwood to somehow justify this whether or not it benefits you them, or makes sense to you or them?

Why do you suppose Starwood is doing this? What is the advantage to Starwood and II? Has anyone been able to make good business sense out of Starwood's decision to employ this rule?


----------



## Bill4728 (Oct 2, 2009)

For those people in SVN (starwood vacation network) the fact that Starwood controls their deposit is written into the rules of SVN. So what starwood is doing isn't bad for them. What Starwood is doing to those people not in SVN and therefore not associated with the rules of SVN doesn't look to me that it can stand. It just isn't legal or right.

The idea that Marriott's lawyers would be so stupid to try this too just doesn't seem likely to me.  (I HOPE!!)


----------



## alwysonvac (Oct 2, 2009)

*JMHO*

Based on the 2008 Marriott survey (see link below), it looks like Marriott might attempt to determine the weeks that are deposited in II for point owners which might mean controlling the week deposited like Starwood. At least that was what I thought when I read it.

http://www.tugbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?p=620619#post620619



> _"...If choosing to enroll, the Owner may either receive Vacation Points for a short-term period (such as up to three years) or in perpetuity (indefinitely). Each year, an annual allotment of Vacation Points would be credited to the Owner for use. The *plan is considering the administration of all exchanges *(internal within the Marriott Vacation Club system, external to affiliated Interval International resort, trades for Marriott Rewards Points) within the Marriott Vacation Club system to be managed through Marriott Vacation Club instead of Interval International. If an Owner chooses NOT to enroll, he/she would continue to use his/her vacation ownership just like today."
> 
> "...In the Vacation Points Exchange Program, there may be an annual fee of $159 which may include these and other transaction fees currently paid on a per transaction basis.
> 
> All internal reservations to Marriott Vacation Club resorts may be managed through Marriott Vacation Club. You would no longer use Interval International to trade to another Marriott Vacation Club resort. *Trading to a resort outside of the Marriott Vacation Club system would still require the use of Interval International, but this may be managed through Marriott Vacation Club.*"_


----------



## Stefa (Oct 2, 2009)

Anything is possible, but I tend to think Marriott wouldn't do something like this.   Starwood has always seemed unconcerned with how complicated the exchange process is within their internal system (SVN) or II, so this new,  totally confusing and owner unfriendly system comes as little surprise to me.

I would also point out that SDO owners are perhaps more likely to be upset by the new rules because so many weeks float 1-52 and therefore many lower-demand weeks are included when determining average trade power.  

I don't necessarily object to what Starwood is doing by choosing the week that gets deposited or by assigning the same trade power to all weeks within the same season at the same resort.  My complaint is that the system is so confusing and unfair to owners.  (Last I heard you can't do a request first and can't search more than one year out.)


----------



## MLC (Oct 2, 2009)

gmarine said:


> Recently Starwood implemented a new exchange system with II that does not allow owners to deposit the their home resort reservation with Interval. Starwood now controls the week deposited and together with II has designated all weeks the same trading power. For example, at Sheraton Desert Oasis an owner with a week 1-52 floating unit has Gold Plus trading power regardless of the fact that they can reserve a platinum season week.
> The have also taken away the ability to do a request first exchange with II. Now, when making a request, your home resort reservation has to be canceled. Its ridiculous and the system stinks.
> 
> Starwood owners, including myself, are getting together to fight Starwood on this.
> ...



I could be missing something but Starwood has always done that.  Now I am told that the new system is that you deposit a week to II via starwood but starwood gives II a week from the resort that you own.(for example if you own Harborside and you give the week to II via starwood then starwood gives II a harborside week not some summer week at Mission Hills).


----------



## dioxide45 (Oct 3, 2009)

If Marriott goes to an internal exchange system, I see it as very likely that they will select the week for you to deposit in to II instead of giving you the option to reserve and deposit what you choose.


----------



## m61376 (Oct 3, 2009)

dioxide45 said:


> If Marriott goes to an internal exchange system, I see it as very likely that they will select the week for you to deposit in to II instead of giving you the option to reserve and deposit what you choose.



Likely you are right. The difference is the Marriott system will be optional, which will allow them not to violate the underlying regulations. Owners may elect to continue trading in II as a weeks based system rather than using the internal trading system.

It also looks like they are at least considering a points overlay system, if the newest AP program offering is any indication of what they are planning. I think they may be testing the water with the AP program, since it is a smaller scale, before attempting to roll anything out MVCI-wide and having a public relations fiasco.

Of course, the flip side of having the week deposited chosen for you is that it makes it easier for owners to reserve prime weeks at their home resort, but makes it harder for exchangers to get those prime weeks since they are no longer being reserved to maximize exchange power. I think Marriott choosing the week will be a bigger issue for certain resorts than others, depending upon how the season was structured and whether there is huge variability in desirability within weeks in any given season (which is more of an issue at resorts with longer seasons).


----------



## ondeadlin (Oct 3, 2009)

There's nothing that would legally prevent Marriott and II coming to some such agreement, because they're both private parties. II could simply implement a rule that it's only accepting exchanges directly from Marriott. Why would II do that? One reason would be because Marriott said, "If you want to continue as our preferred partner, you need to do this, or we'll hook up with RCI."

You, as an owner, would still be free to exchange your week with an independent, such as SFX. But if you wanted to go through II, you'd have to do it Marriott's way.

The reason I don't think Marriott would do this, though, is that there would be tremendous owner backlash.


----------



## wuv pooh (Oct 3, 2009)

I believe the short answer is yes.  Exchanging is a privilege and not a right of ownership/usage.  I believe Marriott has full control over any exchange system they choose to run.  Owners are always free to use, rent, or trade directly and do not have to use or pay for the exchange system.

What they choose to do will be based on the feedback and backlash of the members.  As in the past, it is likely that the "average" member will rule and the changes will not benefit the "educated" members until we figure out the new angle of the new system


----------



## Pit (Oct 3, 2009)

wuv pooh said:


> I believe the short answer is yes.  Exchanging is a privilege and not a right of ownership/usage.



Disagree. Exchanging is not a privilege. It is a service that owners pay for, and one of numerous usage options (occupy, gift, rent, exchange). The option to use your real-estate as you see fit is a fundamental, legal property right.


----------



## timeos2 (Oct 3, 2009)

*If they do it it's done*



Pit said:


> Disagree. Exchanging is not a privilege. It is a service that owners pay for, and one of numerous usage options (occupy, gift, rent, exchange). The option to use your real-estate as you see fit is a fundamental, legal property right.



Ask Westgate owners what the "rights" of ownership, usage, trades, etc gets you from a power hungry management. Zero. Fixed week? Means nothing to them and who is going to pay thousands to fight them over a week worth little? Marriott has shown plenty of times that the corporate coffers come first and owners a distant second. II bows to anything a developer desires so they aren't going to help you (again look at Westgate where they are willing to accept any deposit from Westgate rather than the deeded week from the owner. RCI won't allow that!) 

So if Marriott decides they want to assign you whatever use they want you can be sure that will be what happens. The few dozen complaints from those in the know aren't going to mean a thing vs the tens of thousands who would roll over and accept whatever they decide to do. And again II will back them all the way. You better hope they don't decide to change things.


----------



## jarta (Oct 3, 2009)

billymach4,

From the non-SVN TUG members, the flap is mostly about money (and gaming the system).

From Starwood's viewpoint, they are making the rules concerning trading to be the same for all owners (SVN and non-SVN) in the SVO system.

First, the viewpoint of the non-SVN owners.  They have been able to call at exactly one year out and reserve the best week within their season (some, due to an abnormality in the float period which was created even before Starwood allowed SDO into the SVO system can even reserve in any season.  Thus someone who owns a summer week in Scottsdale can reserve, based upon availability, Christmas or a Spring training week with no intention of ever using that week.)

The MF at SDO for a 2-br lock-off for 2009 were $827.50.  A Summer month can be picked up for less than $400 - including closing costs.  Remember you can then use that Summer month to reserve a great week anytime - if you have found one of the abnormal ones that have a float period of weeks 1-52.

What the non-SVN members who have reserved that great week then used to do is split the two sides of the lock-off and deposit two weeks of 1-br in II.  With the great trading power in II of Starwood properties, like SDO, they were then relatively assured of using the 2 great weeks of 1-br Starwood units (although their 2-br lockoff week was deeded in Summer) to trade for 2 separate 2-br units like Marriott or Hyatt units or elsewhere in great locations.

There is another advantage to gaming the system this way.  For MF of $827.50 (plus the II membership), they avoided the MF on the two 2-br units elsewhere.  Would you like to be able to own a 2-br lockoff unit in Scottsdale in mid-summer for $827.50 and end up with a 2-br in Hawaii and a 2-br in Palm Springs or Aruba?  I hope you see why the non-SVN members are very disturbed that their gaming of the system will end.  Now, trading power will be assigned by II based upon the season of the unit deeded.  There are howls galore about that.

SDO is just the best opportunity for gaming the system because of the float abnormality.  But, in every season there is a week that is probably considered "prime" and those are the weeks the non-SVN members were reserving - merely to trade in II.

From Starwood's viewpoint, the non-SVN members were hogging all the great weeks and making it hard for other owners at the Starwood resorts to reserve in those weeks.  Moreover, as others have pointed out, the SVN member/owners were not allowed to pick their week to deposit with II.  Starwood would do that - and the SVN members always seemed to get fair trades that way in II.

So, to open up the reservations for good weeks for all owners, to put all owners on the same footing with II and to stop (in part only) the gaming of the system by non-SVN members, Starwood seems to have approached II and convinced II not to accept a week from a Starwood resort unless it is deposited by Starwood.  (However, any SVO owner can still call at 12 months out during their float season and reserve.  And, once a reservation is made, use by the person reserving is guaranteed, a private rental can be arranged or a non-II trade can be made.  The changes only affect II trading.)  And, all SVO weeks will be assigned trading power in II according to the season in which the week is deeded.  

Some people see that as only fair to all SVO owners.  Others, mainly non-SVN members who own at SDO, see it as piracy of their deeded unit's rights.

As I said, it's about money (and gaming the system).      ...   eom



billymach4 said:


> This can't be ruled out for Marriott. I would tend to think that MVCI HQ is standing by the sidelines watching and waiting to see how this plays out with Starwood.
> 
> That being said the folks that paid big bucks for Platinum weeks at locations like Hilton Head, Hawaii, Ocean Point, Beach Place, NCV, Aruba and the list goes on... will have a lynch mob outside MVCI HQ. I personally can't see Marriott hoping to pull this off. Also the Marriott network of resorts and units is so much larger that Starwood. Easier for Starwood to somehow justify this whether or not it benefits you them, or makes sense to you or them?
> 
> Why do you suppose Starwood is doing this? What is the advantage to Starwood and II? Has anyone been able to make good business sense out of Starwood's decision to employ this rule?


----------



## jerseygirl (Oct 3, 2009)

Some call it gaming the system.  These are usually the people who paid tens (or hundreds) of thousands of dollars to buy into Starwood's version of what makes a wonderful timeshare network.  They signed away their external trading rights when they joined Starwood's network.  Some of them are not yet able to admit that they may not have made the best financial decision.

Others call it smart trading.  These are usually the people who paid a few hundred bucks on ebay and are vacationing next door to the first group.  This second group was only doing what every other non-network owner has the right and ability to do should they so choose.  They never signed away their external trading rights and therefore are questioning the legality of Starwood's actions.  Oh, and they've probably made many bad financial decisions in their lifetimes too -- just not necessarily this one.

Have you heard Aesop's little story about the fox and the grapes .....


----------



## jarta (Oct 3, 2009)

jerseygirl,   ...   You call it fox and grapes, implying jealousy.  Some might call what was being done as overreaching and unfair.

I notice that you don't quibble about any of the facts I stated explaining how the system was being gamed.

I own 6 2-br or larger Starwood weeks in platinum season.  Three are at Starwood "mandatory" resorts and, thus, automatically in SVN.  The other three were bought from the developer and, thus, are in SVN.  I am 5 Star Elite so I have many, many more privileges and much more flexibility than you.  I am not jealous of anything you or non-SVN members were accomplishing.  You folks do not compete with me for reservations.  I was just explaining things that had been left unsaid about how the system was being used.

And, I did use II once.  Starwood deposited a gold or Fall small 1-br at WMH on my behalf for relinquishing a small 1-br at WKV and I was able to trade in II for a large 1-br at the same resort, WMH, in platinum season.  (I could have even traded for a 2-br, but I didn't need the space.)  Letting Starwood decide didn't adversely affect me.

As I said, some consider it piracy and some consider it trying to be fair.  Each can have their point of view.

I am very happy with my position and purchases.  3 weeks were bought resale and 3 were bought from the developer and used to retro (bring fully back into the SVN system) resale weeks.   I enjoy my timeshare weeks and I hope you do, too.      ...   eom


----------



## jerseygirl (Oct 3, 2009)

jarta said:


> jerseygirl,   ...   You call it fox and grapes, implying jealousy.  Some might call what was being done as overreaching and unfair.
> 
> I notice that you don't quibble about any of the facts I stated explaining how the system was being gamed.



My entire post was designed to question your facts about gaming.  I just chose to use fewer words than you did.  Each and every non-SVN member has the same ability to call and book prime weeks within his/her season.  That's not gaming ...

Further, the "SVN" and "non-SVN" inventory must be kept separate.   Non-SVN prime weeks cannot be given to SVN members until the 60-day mark, so your entire premise is incorrect.  



jarta said:


> I own 6 2-br or larger Starwood weeks in platinum season.  Three are at Starwood "mandatory" resorts and, thus, automatically in SVN.  The other three were bought from the developer and, thus, are in SVN.  I am 5 Star Elite so I have many, many more privileges and much more flexibility than you.  I am not jealous of anything you or non-SVN members were accomplishing.  You folks do not compete with me for reservations.  I was just explaining things that had been left unsaid about how the system was being used.



Is this a contest?  We own 6.5 Starwood weeks -- one 3-BR, one 1-BR, the rest are 2-BRs.  All are platinum or gold (by choice).  Three are in SVN, the rest are not.  One was a developer purchase, and it will never go to SVN or II, so the trading privileges had nothing to do with the decision to purchase.  In my opinion, the network privileges are not worth the premium.  You are, of course, are free to feel otherwise ... but I think you doth protest too much, lol.



jarta said:


> And, I did use II once.  Starwood deposited a gold or Fall small 1-br at WMH on my behalf for relinquishing a small 1-br at WKV and I was able to trade in II for a large 1-br at the same resort, WMH, in platinum season.  (I could have even traded for a 2-br, but I didn't need the space.)  Letting Starwood decide didn't adversely affect me.



So, I can see you're an II expert.  



jarta said:


> As I said, some consider it piracy and some consider it trying to be fair.  Each can have their point of view.



I couldn't agree more ... but your original post seemed to speak for an entire ownership body (SVN members) and Starwood itself.  Hence, my rebuttal. 



jarta said:


> I am very happy with my position and purchases.  3 weeks were bought resale and 3 were bought from the developer and used to retro (bring fully back into the SVN system) resale weeks.   I enjoy my timeshare weeks and I hope you do, too.      ...   eom



I enjoy all 13 of my timeshares very much, thank you.  And, thanks for the explanation.  But, believe me, I knew what retro was before you even heard of SVN.


----------



## SueDonJ (Oct 3, 2009)

I don't know why MVCI couldn't do something similar when the only thing guaranteed by the deeded rights is the right to exchange - the owner can decide if s/he wants to exchange privately, or through the exchange company that MVCI contracts with, or through an exchange company that the owner contracts with.

The terms of the contract between MVCI and II (or whatever exchange company) aren't deeded, so they are free to set new ones whenever both companies agree.



> The have also taken away the ability to do a request first exchange with II. Now, when making a request, your home resort reservation has to be canceled.



This is what would concern me the most - it's a great safety net.  I like that you can choose either Request or Deposit First, because Request First guarantees that you will have your home resort week if you don't like what's available for exchange, but the possibility of an AC only exists with Deposit First.  Come to think of it, would a change like this negate the need for II to use AC's as enticements for Deposit First?  Are Starwood deposits also eligible for AC's?


----------



## Stefa (Oct 3, 2009)

Starood deposits are not eligible for ACs under either the new or old system.


----------



## gmarine (Oct 3, 2009)

jarta said:


> billymach4,
> 
> From the non-SVN TUG members, the flap is mostly about money (and gaming the system).
> 
> ...



 Its not about gaming the system. Its about deeded rights. If my deed says I have the right to make a reservation for any week I wish, I also have the right to assign that week to someone else,rent that week or do anything I wish with that week. Starwood is not allowing me to assign usage of that week to II. 

I have spoken at length with II about this. If Starwood will confirm my usage as available, II will allow the deposit of my reserved week. However, Starwood wont confirm my usage if I want to give it to II. Unlike SVN members, I have no contractual agreement that allows SVO to do this. There in lies the problem.


----------



## jerseygirl (Oct 3, 2009)

Florida law states:  " ... unless otherwise stated, a purchaser's contract with the exchange company is a contract _separate and distinct from the purchaser's contract with the seller of the timeshare plan._"

For SVN members, they are provided with, and agree to, the "otherwise stated" language related to exchange privileges.  However, no documentation appears to exist in the pre-Starwood deeds and CCRs, at least not that I can find.  SVN members have corporate II accounts, i.e., they are controlled by Starwood.  Non-SVN members have individual II accounts - they pay their annual fees (separate and apart from maintenance fees) and they pay fees to have weeks added to their accounts.  When I read the relevant statutes, it seems to me that the "spirit" is such that Starwood cannot arbitrarily interfere with the relationship between II and its members without written agreement to the contrary (as is the case with SVN members).  

I think II may have the right to choose Starwood over the customer, and refuse to accept deposits that don't come from Starwood .... but that's a different story and a slipperly slope for II.  Although, they appear to be willing to give up their biggest competitive advantage over RCI ("request first"), so who knows what else they're willing to do.  They want to be sure there's not a repeat defection, i.e., another Disney and the rumored upcoming loss of a significant chunk of Marriott owners' business.


----------



## jarta (Oct 3, 2009)

jerseygirl,   ...   "I think II may have the right to choose Starwood over the customer, and refuse to accept deposits that don't come from Starwood .... but that's a different story and a slipperly slope for II."

And, that's exactly what II is doing.  It's II's company and II's right to make the rules on the the year-to-year trading contracts.  Starwood has more economic clout with II and, for better or worse, II is probably doing what Starwood wants.  That's life!  There are other trading companies where you can trade a great Starwood week without II's restrictions.  Having the ability to trade doesn't mean you are restricted to trading with II.

There are several solutions (aside from joining SVN which you feel is not worth the expense).

1.  Reserve a great week at SDO - and actually show up at the resort where you own.

2.  Rent that great week to someone else.

3.  Use another trading company which will accept your reserved week.

4.  Comply with II's new rules and see what you can get.  It will be the same opportunity as everyone else deeded in the weeks around yours.  

If you have been deeded a truly stinky week, you will get the average power of the entire season - which is better than having trading power assigned by the stinky week deeded.  If you are deeded a great week in the season, the opposite happens - a decrease in trading power.  You still get the average trading power for the season.  But, these should be very minor variations in trading power.   

The new system is not all that horrible unless you really, really want to reserve and deposit with II that 2-br lockoff Christmas or Spring training week that was obtained with a 1-52 summer deeded week so that you can have a better chance to get two 2-br weeks elsewhere through II.

And, you think I doth protest too much?  I'm not protesting at all.  Perhaps it's _vous_?  lol!      ...   eom


----------



## jerseygirl (Oct 3, 2009)

jarta said:


> If you have been deeded a truly stinky week, you will get the average power of the entire season - which is better than having trading power assigned by the stinky week deeded.  If you are deeded a great week in the season, the opposite happens - an decrease in trading power.  You still get the average trading power for the season.  But, these should be very minor variations in trading power.



Jarta -- I'll let you have the last word on everything but the above statement, which illustrates your lack of the most fundamental tenets of timesharing.  When one owns a "true float" week (like 1-52 at SDO, where I do not own, by the way), the deeded week is meaningless -- it's simply a record designed to ensure the developer does not oversell the resort.  It's not fair for me to argue further, since your understanding of the process isn't up to par.


----------



## jarta (Oct 3, 2009)

jerseygirl,   ...   





jerseygirl said:


> When one owns a "true float" week (like 1-52 at SDO, where I do not own, by the way), the deeded week is meaningless -- it's simply a record designed to ensure the developer does not oversell the resort.  It's not fair for me to argue further, since your understanding of the process isn't up to par.



I know (and so do you) that only some of the units at SDO were sold as float 1-52.  The rest (except for a very few pure fixed or fixed/float units) were deeded/sold as floating in a several week limited period.  That's why I have been referring to the 1-52 units as "abnormal."

Enjoy your timeshares!      ...   eom


----------



## AwayWeGo (Oct 3, 2009)

*WestGate?  Sure.  But Marriott?  Heaven Forfend !*




timeos2 said:


> So if Marriott decides they want to assign you whatever use they want you can be sure that will be what happens. The few dozen complaints from those in the know aren't going to mean a thing vs the tens of thousands who would roll over and accept whatever they decide to do. And again II will back them all the way.


Shux, a class organization like Marriott would _never_ stoop to the level of those WestGate & I-I shenanigans.  

Would they ? 

( Other than ROFR*,* I mean*.* ) 

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


----------



## billymach4 (Oct 4, 2009)

Has Starwood communicated this new policy, or so called policy? Has II communicated this in any shape or form? 

If not that is really bad Customer Relations. It's one thing to think a business has some sort of policy and never enforce it, then to wake up one day and make everyone play by some new rule and not ever announce the intent?


----------



## jerseygirl (Oct 4, 2009)

jarta said:


> jerseygirl,   ...
> 
> I know (and so do you) that only some of the units at SDO were sold as float 1-52.  The rest (except for a very few pure fixed or fixed/float units) were deeded/sold as floating in a several week limited period.  That's why I have been referring to the 1-52 units as "abnormal."
> 
> Enjoy your timeshares!      ...   eom



Not that it has anything to do with the incorrect statement I was addressing ("If you have been deeded a truly stinky week, you will get the average power of the entire season - which is better than having trading power assigned by the stinky week deeded....) ....

But ... at SDO, almost 40% are non-SVN weeks, the majority of which were sold as Float 1-52 pre-SVN weeks.  Hardly abnormal.  They represent the largest ownership group.  You might want to take the time to understand basic timeshare characteristics, and your SVN disclosure guides, before you make unsubstantiated claims. 

Marriott owners -- very sorry to argue on your board.  Just thought it was important that you understand the facts, not the Starwood Koolaid presented earlier.  It truly does boil down to this:  One group (SVN members) has given Starwood authorization to control external trading.  The other group (non-SVN members) has not.  I'm a member of both groups and have no issue with the new system as it relates to SVN weeks (except as it relates to the removal of "Request First," a stupid decision).  But, I do have have an issue with Starwood's attempt to control external trading, without authorization, for non-SVN weeks.  

Now I truly am out of this conversation.  Thank goodness for the "ignore" button!


----------



## SDKath (Oct 4, 2009)

billymach4 said:


> Has Starwood communicated this new policy, or so called policy? Has II communicated this in any shape or form?
> 
> If not that is really bad Customer Relations. It's one thing to think a business has some sort of policy and never enforce it, then to wake up one day and make everyone play by some new rule and not ever announce the intent?



Not officially, no!  When one calls II's Starwood Desk, there are about 100 different answers that people are getting right now.  And TUG folks have forced the issue and have called upper management to ask for clarification.  But to my mind, this is all as clear as mud and there is nothing in writing.  The communication from Starwood is ZIP for someone who is not familiar with TUG.  

And for those of us who own resale weeks at places like SDO and SBP (original versions), what they are doing is totally illegal.  Hence the uproar and jerseygirl's well thought out responses trying to explain what is really going on (versus what should be happening with our resale weeks which are not in SVN)...

Katherine


----------



## DeniseM (Oct 4, 2009)

jarta said:


> There are several solutions (aside from joining SVN which you feel is not worth the expense).



I'm not sure why you posted this - you do know that SDO owners do not have the option of joining the SVN, don't you?  This means that SDO owners and most other voluntary resale owners don't have the privileges of SVN membership, but Starwood wants to saddle us with the rules of SVN membership...

I have to agree with jerseygirl - Comments like this reveal that you really do not have a good understanding of the most basic issues here...


----------



## m61376 (Oct 4, 2009)

As a Marriott owner I wanted to thank Jerseygirl, Denise and others for continuing the discussion here. I find it not only relevant, but am concerned that it has the opportunity to set a precedent as to whether big companies can maneuver around the legal documents, exerting their power on II even though they are trampling on owner's rights. I hope Starwood owners make a huge deal out of what is a very unfair situation at best, and reeks of illegalities.


----------



## jarta (Oct 4, 2009)

Denise,   ...   "I'm not sure why you posted this - you do know that SDO owners do not have the option of joining the SVN, don't you? This means that SDO owners and most other voluntary resale owners don't have the privileges of SVN membership, but Starwood wants to saddle us with the rules of SVN membership...

I have to agree with jerseygirl - Comments like this reveal that you really do not have a good understanding of the most basic issues here..."

You know very well that every SDO resale can be retroed by the purchase of another Starwood week from the developer.  

Retroing the unit puts it right back into the SVN network with all the SVN privileges of the original purchaser.  The most prominent of those rights is that the staroptions (spendable like points) can be used/spent anywhere in the SVO resort system to make a priority reservation, subject to availability, 8 months before arrival.

Retroing a resale unit back into the SVN is expensive, but it clearly can be done.  Like everything else, it's a matter of money.  

(And, there is only a necessity to retro when a resale occurs at a Starwood "voluntary" resort.  Resales at "mandatory" resorts, like on Maui, at WKV in Scottsdale, at Harborside in the Bahamas, at the Bella section of SVV in Orlando and at St. John are automatically in the SVN.  But, the resale prices at mandatory resorts are higher than at the voluntary resorts because they are always in the SVN - even when the repurchaser decides to sell.)

You have often stated you like buying at a voluntary resort because of the lower purchase price and the II system.  You have chosen not to retro your units because of the expense.  You made an informed choice.

So, you, me and jerseygirl all understand the Starwood system very well.  It's not a matter of my not understanding the basic issues.  It's a matter of money (as I said in my very first post on this thread).

You people know very well how you "used" the Starwood system.  I don't criticize you for taking advantage of the loophole.  It was easy pickings because of II's old rules.  But it has been made more difficult because Starwood has more clout with II than you have.  I am not surprised that you don't like the change.  But, I am surprised that you have carried your campaign here to the Marriott board where the Starwood system is not as well-understood.      ...   eom


----------



## Stefa (Oct 4, 2009)

billymach4 said:


> Has Starwood communicated this new policy, or so called policy? Has II communicated this in any shape or form?
> 
> If not that is really bad Customer Relations. It's one thing to think a business has some sort of policy and never enforce it, then to wake up one day and make everyone play by some new rule and not ever announce the intent?



Starwood doesn't seem too concerned about customer relations.  This change was NOT put in place because SDO owners were unable to use their resort under the old system.  I have been able to reserve SDO March weeks two years in a row at 6-7 months out, including 2008 when Easter was in March and spring break and spring training overlapped.  

I can't see any reason why Marriott would do something like this unless they came to the conclusion that they wanted to make ownership less desirable for some people.


----------



## Pit (Oct 4, 2009)

jarta said:


> You people know very well how you "used" the Starwood system.  I don't criticize you for taking advantage of the loophole.



I'm not sure what loophole you're referring to. As jerseygirl pointed out, the bulk of weeks at SDO float 1-52. Reserving a float week to deposit with II is nothing abnormal. The deposit option exists by design, not as a loophole.


----------



## Twinkstarr (Oct 4, 2009)

m61376 said:


> As a Marriott owner I wanted to thank Jerseygirl, Denise and others for continuing the discussion here. I find it not only relevant, but am concerned that it has the opportunity to set a precedent as to whether big companies can maneuver around the legal documents, exerting their power on II even though they are trampling on owner's rights. I hope Starwood owners make a huge deal out of what is a very unfair situation at best, and reeks of illegalities.



I wouldn't be suprised if Marriott goes this way if and when the internal trade/point system is implemented. It seems all the majors are heading that way with their "official" trading companies(RCI or II). You deposit a # of points and the TS company will determine what week goes into RCI/II.


----------



## jarta (Oct 4, 2009)

Stefa,   ...   "This change was NOT put in place because SDO owners were unable to use their resort under the old system."

First, I did not say that SDO owners were unable to use their resort.  I said the prime weeks were being hogged by II traders who have no intention of ever vacationing at their Starwood "home" resort.  Here's the exact quote: "the non-SVN members were hogging all the great weeks and making it hard *for other owners at the Starwood resorts* to reserve in those weeks." 

Since I am wrong, could you please tell everyone what the reason for the change actually was?

However, twinkstarr, is right.  The majors seem to be heading the way of Starwood.  The majors might be making a bad decision if they follow Starwood's lead.  Time will tell.  But the majors have many very desireable destinations and they have (or at least Starwood has) the economic muscle to make II change its policies.  

BTW, did you see the amount of advertising Starwood took out in the latest II magazine?  It reads like a Starwood advertisement.  II must know where its bread is buttered.

Change is sometimes hard to digest.  But, in life, change is inevitable. And, II is changing.  Maybe, as a result, another timeshare trading company will take over II's current place of dominence.  If the change is so bad, someone will fill the void.         ...   eom


----------



## dioxide45 (Oct 4, 2009)

jarta said:


> First, I did not say that SDO owners were unable to use their resort.  I said the prime weeks were being hogged by II traders who have no intention of ever vacationing at their Starwood "home" resort.  Here's the exact quote: "the non-SVN members were hogging all the great weeks and making it hard *for other owners at the Starwood resorts* to reserve in those weeks."



I think this is important to note. Marriott has a similar problem. Many people book the super prime weeks at their home resort with no intention of using it. They want that maximum trading power. However have far more power than they even need to get the weeks they are looking to trade in to. They just want that security, but more times than not they likely don't need it.

Plenty of times people will book July 4th weeks when there are other weeks that have equal demand on the travel demand index.

When I look at the travel demand index for Orlando, there are three gold weeks with 100 (highest for gold weeks). Memorial and Thanksgiving weeks are the hardest to reserve though Columbus week also had 100 on the index. We have opted to try and book Columbus week for 2010. It probably isn't as demanded for families traveling and it should still give us the trade power we need for the weeks/resorts we trade in to.


----------



## Stefa (Oct 4, 2009)

jarta said:


> Here's the exact quote: "the non-SVN members were hogging all the great weeks and making it hard *for other owners at the Starwood resorts* to reserve in those weeks."



Nice try.  I said I found availability at 6-7 months out.  As you are very well aware, this is within the window for non-owners to make reservations via SVN.  Had 'other owners at the Starwood resorts' wanted these weeks, they could have had them and I would have been SOL.   Actually, I called in 2007 to make a reservation for spring break 2008 using Staroptions from my Vistana Villages unit.  SDO was one of a few resorts that had availablity.


----------



## Bill4728 (Oct 4, 2009)

With what starwood is doing to owners at resorts they manage has three things going on:
1 Generic weeks are being traded, not a specific week being assigned to you. 
Personally, I like this idea. It means that an owner is likely going to have a much better chance of being able to reserve the super high demand weeks for use. I do not like the idea of fighting to reserve a high demand week, when the other owner is just going to trade it.  
2 Starwood is making owners give up their reserved weeks just to do an online instant search for what is available in II. What a terrible idea. I can't even look at what might be available in II without forfitting my reservation?? NO WAY!! 
3. Basically #2 again, You must give up your reserved week to do a " request first" on-going search

Both # 2 & 3 are terrible for all owners within starwood and completely un needed. Every other member of II can search both instantly & ongoingly without giving up their reserved week, starwood owners can't do this anymore.


----------



## Stefa (Oct 4, 2009)

Twinkstarr said:


> I wouldn't be suprised if Marriott goes this way if and when the internal trade/point system is implemented. It seems all the majors are heading that way with their "official" trading companies(RCI or II). You deposit a # of points and the TS company will determine what week goes into RCI/II.



I wouldn't be surprised either.  And I don't think it is necessarily unfair (don't know about the legalities) as long as they provide access to their internal system.  The big difference is that Starwood excludes a number of resale owners from their internal trading system which I don't believe any other major company does.   

This kills resale value.   Those who defend Starwood will point to SDO being a cheap unit that is a good trader, but, on the other side of the coin, Westin Princeville resale owners are not allowed into SVN either.   WPV is a high-quality resort in Hawaii and if you purchase a resale unit there you can't trade into Maui or other desirable locations within the Starwood network.  Your only option is II where Starwood makes sure no good weeks get deposited.  Would you want to pay the 2k MFs for a Princeville week with little chance of exchanging into a high-quality resort?


----------



## SueDonJ (Oct 4, 2009)

I admit to knowing nothing about Starwood, but those folks here seem to be able to point to actual contract language that makes them question the legality of the recent "enhancement" of Starwood/II exchanges.  (They always seem to use that "enhancement" word when they're making changes, don't they?)

What MVCI/II contract language in the ownership documents would call in to question the legality of a similar "enhancement" for us MVCI owners?  That's the important thing to look at, isn't it?  We can talk about goodwill and customer service and a minority ownership group (TUG members, specifically) rising up in protest, but Marriott/MVCI has proven in the past that they aren't averse to "program enhancements" that devalue the usage options of our ownerships.

And as several people have noted in this thread, there have been plenty of complaints and discussions generated by the accepted practice of MVCI owners reserving the prime weeks within a season in order to garner maximum trade value for an exchange.  How many of those complaints does MVCI actually receive, and would they consider the issue important enough to make changes in the terms of their contract with II?

The elephant in the room is that rumored new internal exchange system, and what MVCI would need to do to entice as many owners as possible to join in.  Couldn't devaluing the II exchange practices be an enticement?

If the ownership documents don't support that it would be illegal for MVCI to do the same as Starwood, and our exchange options were "enhanced" similarly, my major complaint would still be with losing the Request First option.  I'd hate that.


----------



## Stefa (Oct 4, 2009)

Bill4728 said:


> With what starwood is doing to owners at resorts they manage has three things going on:
> 1 Generic weeks are being traded, not a specific week being assigned to you.
> Personally, I like this idea. It means that an owner is likely going to have a much better chance of being able to reserve the super high demand weeks for use. I do not like the idea of fighting to reserve a high demand week, when the other owner is just going to trade it.
> 2 Starwood is making owners give up their reserved weeks just to do an online instant search for what is available in II. What a terrible idea. I can't even look at what might be available in II without forfitting my reservation?? NO WAY!!
> ...



Good post, Bill.  I agree with your points but would add that they are also limiting the search window to one year, meaning you can't put in a request more than one year in advance.


----------



## Stefa (Oct 4, 2009)

SueDonJ said:


> The elephant in the room is that rumored new internal exchange system, and what MVCI would need to do to entice as many owners as possible to join in.  Couldn't devaluing the II exchange practices be an enticement?



Susan

I'll try to not get into a long-winded explanation of how Starwood works, I want to point out a few quirks with Starwood's system that would hopefully not be adopted by Marriott should Marriott choose to go to an internal exchange system.  

First, owners cannot choose to belong or not belong to Starwood's internal trading system (SVN).  Everyone who buys from Starwood is in the system (and pays annual dues) whether they want to be or not.   For resale owners it is based on where you own.  Again, you do not have a choice.   Either your resort belongs or it doesn't.   Starwood has created a lot of their own problems by having such a convoluted system.

Another issue with SVN is that you cannot bank your points (called Staroptions) for future use.  If you can't use or rent your unit, you either lose it or put it into II.  

You can't please all the people all the time, but I think Marriott could have an internal system that works very well for most owners.  No system is perfect, but Starwoods is needlessly complex.


----------



## m61376 (Oct 4, 2009)

I think that the very differences that already exist between Marriott and Starwood will benefit Marriott owners and serve to protect them, partly because, as pointed out above, Marriott does not have the convoluted system that Starwood did even before this recent change. My guess is that this change at Starwood was designed, at least in part, to streamline a convoluted system wherein resale owners at certain resorts had different trading rights than direct purchasers at other resorts which, to some degree, were even better when exchanging outside of the Starwood system. In effect, resale buyers at voluntary resorts held an advantage over direct purchasers even at the same resort if trading outside of Starwood in II, if I understand the program as it existed for many years.

Marriott is in a different position for several reasons. First off, currently all owners- resale and direct- trade for other properties whether for other Marriotts or outside the Marriott system- equally, with trading ability determined simply by what is owned, size of unit deposited, week deposited, time frame of deposit/request, etc.. Secondly, Marriott is in a position whereby they will be implementing a new system (if they do enact a new system) and all owners will have the option of joining. They can't simply force points based ownership on deeded weeks owners. So, they have to make a system that is very appealing.

That said, I do feel that Twinkstarr is right and that Marriott will likely choose the week being deposited for external trades, especially if they choose to offer the same program to all owners, allowing all owners the option of trading into the points system. Their argument for choosing the week being deposited would be an easy one- why should non-Marriott owners get best week deposits, and why not leave them for Marriott owners to enjoy? However, IF they didn't let non-direct purchasers (resale) buyers into the new system, then the resale buyers would still be able to reserve and deposit those great weeks, effectively giving them better trade power in II (much like the resale buyers at voluntary resorts in Starwood), which would put Marriott in the same quagmire that Starwood has found itself in. I am sure that Marriott will not do anything to create the impression that resales have better benefits than direct purchases- another reason for them to treat all owners equally.

This does create a very interesting point though when thinking ahead. To date, I have maintained that it was in Marriott's best interests to treat ALL current owners equally, but feared that they would penalize future resale buyers because there was no disincentive to do so (changing the rules after purchase is one thing, but informed buyers making a purchase with restricted rights is another matter and, of course, there would be a financial incentive for future transactions); however, the fact that if future resale buyers were excluded from any trading system and IF Marriott were to choose to pick the weeks deposited into II for external trades, then they would be creating the same mess that Starwood is struggling to extricate itself from, wherein resale buyers basically can be ahead of direct purchasers when trading into resorts of outside brands.

My guess is Marriott will be watching and learning....


----------



## SueDonJ (Oct 4, 2009)

Stefa said:


> Good post, Bill.  I agree with your points but would add that they are also limiting the search window to one year, meaning you can't put in a request more than one year in advance.



I agree with Bill's points, too, and this info that you've added doesn't sound good either.  Being able to keep your home resort reservation as a back-up while searching as far out as possible (to the expiration date of the exchange window, ideally) are huge selling points for the Request First option.  I wouldn't want to see any changes there.


----------



## SueDonJ (Oct 4, 2009)

Stefa and m, thanks for the additional info about how Starwood has functioned and is changing, as compared to how MVCI functions.  Every post here makes the Starwood situation more clear.

m, I don't know how to respond to your post without dragging the whole discussion and our differences about the rumored MVCI internal exchange system over to this thread, and that's not why I mentioned it.  The only reason was to ask if a change that would be similar to Starwood's recent changes, would have enough of an impact on MVCI owners' decisions to determine whether or not to join IF MVCI implements such a change.

Simply, does MVCI need to devalue the II exchange options as they function now, in order to entice owners to join the rumored system IF it is implemented?  And if so, would changes similar to what's being done to Starwood properties in II be sufficient enticement?

I suppose that can't be answered without MVCI first announcing exactly if the new internal exchange system is definitely happening, and exactly what the terms of it will be.  Probably it's not beneficial to add it to this discussion of, "could Marriott do what Starwood is doing," but it had already been mentioned and I was trying to combine some different thoughts ...


----------



## m61376 (Oct 5, 2009)

Susan-Actually it does bring up some interesting implications, at least the way I see it. Our differences aside, whether Marriott opts to choose the week deposited into II for those who opt to join the rumored future points system, along the lines of what Starwood has done, will have a big impact on the system, in my opinion at least. 

One big difference is that, at least from everything I have been told and even the rumors that I've read, is that a status quo option will always remain; that is, all owners will have the option of retaining their weeks status and continue trading in II as they do now. That has been emphatically stated by several sources and I think it is something we can bank on, especially since they can't just remove the rights of deeded weeks. Of course, IF a new system is introduced and IF it attracts a lot of members, then the Marriott trade pool in II will necessarily decrease. 

So Marriott needs to do something to entice owners to convert if a new system is introduced. On one hand, I can see some advantages to Marriott electing to choose the week deposited into II: owners purchased a season, and there is some sense of fairness to trade power being averaged over the season purchased; Marriott owners would have access to the best weeks to use rather than to trade, theoretically making it easier for owners to reserve weeks they want to use rather than having them nabbed by someone looking to maximize their trade power. However, I also foresee some very unhappy owners, who could proffer the flip side of the argument: owners purchased the right to reserve whatever week they wanted (subject to availability) within a given season, and why should anyone restrict what week they reserve depending upon how they decide to utilize the reservation? People generally look out for self interest and don't really care if they are monopolizing weeks for trade that others would like to reserve for use.

The purported existence of 2 distinct systems going forward IF Marriott decides to introduce an optional new system, as rumored, will place certain constraints on how Marriott treats deposits for external trades in II, since they can only implement those changes for those electing to join the new system. They can't really do what Starwood is doing across the board because their original business model and ownership rights are so different (and I have strong doubts that the changes Starwood has implemented, which appear to have trampled on the rights of resale buyers of voluntary resorts, will withstand legal scrutiny in the long run). 

As I think about it more, what I find particularly interesting is the question of not whether Marriott can do the same thing as Starwood when and if it implements a new system, but how they can structure deposits made within the new system for external trades in II such that those in the new system aren't effectively penalized for external trades. That will be a fine line to balance, especially IF they opt, like Starwood historically has for its mandatory resorts, to select the week deposited into II for external trades.

The issue here is larger than the direct versus resale distinction, since at least initially there will be a majority of owners who still belong to the old system and will continue "business as usual." I think the enticement to join will not be so much about trade power in II (and thus whether Marriott chooses the week deposited for external trades may not be as important, at least initially), but about increased access and the ability to reserve weeks at other Marriotts outside of one's home resort; internal trading is the biggest selling point of a points system, along with greater flexibility. 

However, going forward, creating a system whereby owners in the new system are effectively penalized when trying to trade externally through II because they were assigned a lesser value generic week may be a big issue. Marriott would not want to place owners opting into the new system at any disadvantage to owners electing not to join the new system. Although since their hope and anticipation is that most owners will join the new system, they could decide to follow Starwood's example and choose the week for external deposits into II. 

Without dragging any of our prior disagreements wrt resale owners into this thread, I do think whether Marriott decides to do what Starwood is doing for members of the new system will create an interesting dilemma for Marriott. On one hand, while I don't like the concept of only grandfathering current resale owners into any new system and excluding future resale owners, I acknowledge that there is an advantage to Marriott for doing so. However, IF Marriott develops a new system and IF under the new system it elects to select what week is deposited into II for trading, IF it excludes future resale buyers from the new system it could be creating a situation that gives an advantage to resale owners- something I am sure Marriott wants to avoid. While I doubt that the resale issue will play a large part in how Marriott shapes the system (and how it deals with deposits made into II under any new system, etc.), I do think that how Marriott ultimately decides to treat resales will be based on making sure that resale owners don't have the opportunity to benefit at the expense of direct purchasers. This issue has been a thorn in the side of Starwood direct purchasers in the past; I have seen numerous comments about how resale buyers at voluntary resorts really had a big advantage in II, and that those interested in trading outside of Starwood were better off buying resale. THAT is a distinction I would guess Marriott would never want to create. 

It will be interesting to see how Marriott decides to balance opposing interests while striving to maintain brand loyalty, especially important at a time where the industry has been eroding overall due to the economic climate.


----------



## timeos2 (Oct 5, 2009)

*How it should work doesn't mean it will*



m61376 said:


> So Marriott needs to do something to entice owners to convert if a new system is introduced. On one hand, I can see some advantages to Marriott electing to choose the week deposited into II: owners purchased a season, and there is some sense of fairness to trade power being averaged over the season purchased; Marriott owners would have access to the best weeks to use rather than to trade, theoretically making it easier for owners to reserve weeks they want to use rather than having them nabbed by someone looking to maximize their trade power. However, I also foresee some very unhappy owners, who could proffer the flip side of the argument: owners purchased the right to reserve whatever week they wanted (subject to availability) within a given season, and why should anyone restrict what week they reserve depending upon how they decide to utilize the reservation? People generally look out for self interest and don't really care if they are monopolizing weeks for trade that others would like to reserve for use.



If Marriott goes to an internal system and if it follows in the image of the majority of others that already exist then the usual process is to create two pools of inventory. One is the new system and under the likely rules Marriott is free to impose the assignment of use weeks as they see fit. An amount of weeks equal to the percentage of the owners of that season should be removed from the general (or traditional) use pool. Those weeks would be used for the new system and would no longer be available to traditional owners. That should include the same percentage of the top demand weeks - no more, no less to keep things fair. So while the total pool of traditionally used weeks would in fact shrink the odds of reserving one in whichever group you ended up in with should be the same as it was prior to the change. 

Now if you trust the administration of the system to actually treat each group fairly and not take an unfair amount of the prime deposits for their preferred system (most likely the new one they are trying to sell for big money) is another question entirely.


----------



## m61376 (Oct 5, 2009)

John-
That's right and, of course, hopefully it will be run legitimately. What I meant (maybe I was unclear) is that IF Marriott elects to choose which weeks are deposited and then, presumably, deposits less desirable weeks into II within any given season, then owners looking to reserve weeks for use would find greater inventory, because prime weeks would presumably no longer be reserved solely for trading purposes. So owners using their owned weeks and even owners trading in internally would find more of those prime vacation weeks available, even though the total number available would be restricted to the new system's share of the ownership.

For example, as it stands now, at many resorts holiday weeks such as 4th of July weeks, which are not Plat. Plus weeks at most locations, are long gone before many owners even have a chance to call in, but many quickly appear in II for others to exchange into. So those wanting to actually use their week would benefit, while those looking to trade and maximize their trade power would suffer. Owners who have long learned to book the outstanding trading weeks in lesser seasons would see a huge decrease, because they would likely only enjoy average trade power of their season. So there would definitely be "winners' and "losers" here, depending on your usage.


----------



## SueDonJ (Oct 5, 2009)

This is all getting so convoluted with "IF" and "but" and "how" and "can they" and "but would they" unanswered questions.

Working with HUGE assumptions here, and trying not to bring the overall discussion to this thread ...

Let's say MVCI implements a new internal exchange system, an overlay system, and all owners are eligible subject to initiation fees.  A grandfather clause is enacted only to determine if a higher initiation fee is applied to every resale week or only those purchased after a certain date.  Then there will be two exchange pools with inventory split according to the unit configuration/season weeks that correspond to each owner in each pool.  (Not specifically the unit numbers on each individual deed, but what you say above - a corresponding percentage of "prime" and lesser weeks.)

Within the pool of folks who elect to join the new system, MVCI chooses the week from the available inventory that is deposited for exchange.  There will be no question of legality because the rule is written into the contract terms and will be effective upon implementation.

Within the pool of folks who do not elect to join the internal system, all of the same rules that apply today to an II exchange remain the same EXCEPT that MVCI/II begins choosing the week that is deposited for the exchange.

I'm just trying to figure out the answer to the OP's question:  "Could MVCI/II do this?"  Is there something in the ownership documents that would legally prevent MVCI from changing the rules as they stand today, whether or not MVCI implements a new internal exchange system?  And, if the new points system is offered and they can implement this new rule for those who remain with II, would it devalue those exchange options enough so that the holdouts would be enticed to switch?


----------



## Fredm (Oct 5, 2009)

SueDonJ said:


> This is all getting so convoluted with "IF" and "but" and "how" and "can they" and "but would they" unanswered questions.
> 
> Working with HUGE assumptions here, and trying not to bring the overall discussion to this thread ...
> 
> ...



Could they? Yes. And, if they did, yes. That would be the object of the exercise.


----------



## SueDonJ (Oct 5, 2009)

Fredm said:


> Could they? Yes. And, if they did, yes. That would be the object of the exercise.



Excellent.  Short and sweet, to the point.  Thanks, Fred.

I do like the discussions that last forever and go off on every tangent imaginable, but I like to put up roadblocks for what's impossible before heading off into the wild yonder.


----------



## m61376 (Oct 5, 2009)

In one of the previous threads discussing reservation rights, didn't one of the lawyers quote a clause in the documents outlining an owner's right to reserve a week for use, rental or exchange? Hopefully they will chime in here. if that's the case, then Marriott would be precluded from preventing owners from reserving and exchanging whatever week they reserved, except for those who elect to join the new system and agree to a new set of rules.

If owners have the right to reserve a week at 12 months for use or exchange, then I don't see how Marriott could do what Starwood did. In truth, I am not sure that Starwood has a legal footing wrt resale voluntary weeks, since owners presumably had the right to reserve and deposit; the question is whether that was just precedent or contractual. Owners at mandatory resorts never had the option of reserving weeks for exchange purposes, so for them that part of the recent change is moot.

It will be interesting to see what, if any, progress owners make with Starwood. I think that will depend upon what is written in their documents and how vocal the small minority of resale voluntary week owners are.

I found the previous post by Davidvel:





> "Marriott cannot alter your right to reserve a week in your season 12/13 months out, nor give any one else (direct or not) any different rights or priority to do so. This is the area I am most focused upon that is ripe for manipulation and will watch quite closely as the system rolls out. Marriott's "Program" can only ask participants to deposit the week you reserve into their program. They cannot manipulate the system so that they automatically reserve the week you will deposit, or otherwise give any priority ahead of non-participants."


----------



## SueDonJ (Oct 5, 2009)

m61376 said:


> In one of the previous threads discussing reservation rights, didn't one of the lawyers quote a clause in the documents outlining an owner's right to reserve a week for use, rental or exchange? Hopefully they will chime in here. if that's the case, then Marriott would be precluded from preventing owners from reserving and exchanging whatever week they reserved, except for those who elect to join the new system and agree to a new set of rules.
> 
> If owners have the right to reserve a week at 12 months for use or exchange, then I don't see how Marriott could do what Starwood did. In truth, I am not sure that Starwood has a legal footing wrt resale voluntary weeks, since owners presumably had the right to reserve and deposit; the question is whether that was just precedent or contractual. Owners at mandatory resorts never had the option of reserving weeks for exchange purposes, so for them that part of the recent change is moot.
> 
> ...



This is why I'm asking for the specific contract language that would forbid MVCI/II from implementing a new rule, whether it would be applied to any new internal exchange system or as a new term of the existing MVCI/II system.

These sections are from the SurfWatch Public Offering Statement:

From the Time Sharing Plan:
"20. EXCHANGE PROGRAMS"
[... basics about II being the contracted exchange company, internal Marriott priority and external options, first year's fee paid for Purchaser at closing, membership optional thereafter at the expense of the Purchaser, multi-year agreement in effect but Developer reserves the right to change affiliation at a future date, followed by ...]
"... The Purchaser's participation in the internal or external exchange program is voluntary and the use of either such exchange program is subject to availability of other timeshare interests in the exchange network, rules, regulations, terms, and other restrictions (including transaction fees) which may be set by Interval from time to time."

From the "Appendix A to Exhibit 'F' to Master Deed:
"2. RESERVATION AND CONFIRMATION OF USE PERIODS.
2.6 Owners desiring to exchange their right to use a Unit through an exchange company must first obtain a confirmed reservation pursuant to these [PROCEDURES FOR RESERVING USAGE] prior to seeking to trade within any exchange system.  If designation of a specific Unit is required to effectuate an exchange, the Management Company, upon notification of this fact by the Owner, will provide the Owner with a reservation confirmation as needed to effectuate an exchange."

and,

"7. GENERAL RULES FOR RESERVATION AND USE.
(c) Owners who desire to exchange their Use Period through an exchange program should consult the exchange program directory and membership material for trading rules which govern exchange requests."

Granted, I'm not an expert, but I'm not seeing anything at all that says MVCI must deposit or II must accept the specific week that an Owner reserves in order to attempt an exchange.  All of the language indicates that the rules of the exchange company will apply, and we don't have access to II's legal documents or the contract between MVCI and II in order to know what those rules are.


----------



## jarta (Oct 5, 2009)

m61376,   ...   The anti-Starwood group on TUG is about 50 regular posters.  Starwood has thousands of units at the SVO resorts.  They are a small but very vocal group.  And, being non-SVN members (by choice), they are directly affected and have an axe to grind.

That does not mean that they don't have points.  They do.  The Starwood developer weeks are too expensive for most buyers and, like every timeshare, they depreciate 30-50% the day the week is sold.  MF are high most places, maybe too high.  Starwood is sometimes arrogant and, like every large corporation, is more concerned with its bottom line and product identity than the desires of individual timeshare owners or TUG posters.  But, Starwood is also not evil incarnate.  And, it runs a pretty good, but not perfect, timeshare system.

It also doesn't mean that the anti-Starwood group know what is in the CCRs for the resorts.  Earlier in this thread, you can see what the Starwood non-SVN traders are concerned about and see what Starwood is concerned about.  I hope you see both sides of the problem.

I have yet to see one of the non-SVN owners who bought to trade in II (and never visit the Starwood resort) quote from one of the CCRs (statute or deed or declaration [which can't be easily changed] or rules [which can]) the provision that gives them the right to force II to accept a trade which violates II's current rules for trading.

The deeds and declarations give a use period and they might even guarantee a right to use an exchange company for trading.  But, if an exchange company says it will not take a reserved week for trades,  the person wanting to trade can always go to another exchange company (or rent it out themselves or use it).  II is not the only exchange company out there.

Is it dumb for Starwood/II to do this?  Perhaps.  Is it dumb for Starwood to try to protect its internal trading network (SVN) by making all trades in II work the same way?  I don't think it is.  Is it dumb for Starwood to try and free up demand in prime weeks for the owners of the resorts?  I don't think it is.  

Could Marriott/II adopt a similar stance?  Of course it could.  I only own Starwood weeks.  I have no idea what side effects Marriott/II's adoption of such a stance would have for Marriott/II traders.  I'm not even sure from reading the posts on this thread that Marriott has a substantial problem with people hogging reservations for prime weeks - only to trade them away to non-Marriott owners for perhaps 2 weeks somewhere else.

The only reason I posted here on the Marriott board is that the complete story wasn't being told about the whys and wherefores of the Starwood/II flap.  And, so, back to lurking and Fredm can take over the explaining.  Fred is a long-time TUGger and in the timeshare business.  He knows timeshares.      ...   eom


----------



## brigechols (Oct 5, 2009)

SueDonJ said:


> Granted, I'm not an expert, but I'm not seeing anything at all that says MVCI must deposit or II must accept the specific week that an Owner reserves in order to attempt an exchange.  All of the language indicates that the rules of the exchange company will apply, and we don't have access to II's legal documents or the contract between MVCI and II in order to know what those rules are.



Here is a link to the II Buyer's Guide which is a legally binding document between II and its members http://www.intervalworld.com/pdf/iw/buyers-guide.pdf. I think you would be well within your rights to request a copy of the affiliation agreement between MVCI and II.


----------



## jerseygirl (Oct 5, 2009)

Susan --

I think the language you provided indicates that Marriott cannot interfere with your relationship with Interval without your consent.  It's very similar to the language I've found in pre-SVN deeds/CCRs and basically follows Florida statute 721.18, where the most relevant clause (IMO), 721.18 (1)(d), states:

(d)  Unless otherwise stated, a statement that the purchaser's contract with the exchange company is a contract separate and distinct from the purchaser's contract with the seller of the timeshare plan. 

Now, contrast your language with the language provided in the SVN Disclosure Guide I received upon purchase of a mandatory resort:

First, in the definitions section:

_External Exchange Company means any company that provides services to SVN or to SVN Members under an External Exchange Program.

External Exchange Program means the contractual arrangement pursuant to which an SVN Member may exchange the use of a Vacation Period, under certain conditions, for the use of accommodations in resorts other than SVN Resorts. _

Then, this specific language:

_V. External Exchange Program
In order to increase the range of options available to SVN Members, SVN Operator has made arrangements for each SVN Member to have access to an External Exchange Program. All external exchange requests will be handled by SVN Operator. An SVN Member who is interested in an external exchange must contact Reservation Services and indicate the SVN Member's preference for an exchange. An SVN Member may make an external exchange request at any time prior to the end of the SVN Member's Use Year, subject to the limitations in Section 4.7 above <edited to add that Section 4.7 deals with the timely payment of maintenance fees, etc.>. Following verification of the identity of the SVN Member and verification that the SVN Member is in good standing, a Reservation Services representative and the SVN Member will discuss the SVN Member's specific time, destination, and type of room requests along with any special requests, and these requests will be noted by the Reservation Services representative. The SVN Member may also be asked to designate more than one alternative set of exchange requests, in order to increase the SVN Member's chances of getting a desired exchange. SVN Member participation in an External Exchange Program will be governed by the terms and conditions of the External Exchange Program and the following: 

(1) All rules and regulations that apply to the use of Units and SVN facilities by SVN Members also will apply to users of such Units and facilities through the External Exchange Program.
(2) An SVN Member will be charged an exchange fee for each confirmed exchange through the External Exchange Program.
(3) Each Use Year, an SVN Member shall be permitted to deposit with the External Exchange Company only one Vacation Period for each VOI owned by the SVN Member, regardless of the number of Vacation Periods such Member may be entitled to reserve in SVN through the use of StarOptions. An SVN Member owning a VOI in a Lock-Off Unit may deposit one or both portions of the Lock-Off Unit with the External Exchange Company and shall be permitted one external exchange per deposit made. Reservation requests for any remaining undeposited portion of the Lock-Off Unit will continue to be subject to the Reservation Window priorities.
(4) With the exception of Vacation Periods reserved at the Home Resort, SVN Members are prohibited from renting to a third party any accommodation reserved through the SVN's exchange program, including accommodations of the External Exchange Program.
(5) Availability of accommodations within the External Exchange Program is dependent on the vacation ownership interests from various External Exchange Program member resorts that are deposited into it
by other members of the External Exchange Program from time to time. An SVN Member can have no assurance that an External Exchange Company will be able to provide the SVN Member with an accommodation that meets the SVN Member's needs and desires when the SVN Member wants it or at a particular time. The exchange accommodation received may or may not be comparable in size, layout, furnishings, services, or amenities to those in SVN Resorts._

Do you see the major differences in the disclosure language?  This "lack of disclosure" is the basis for our assertion that Starwood cannot force these changes on non-SVN members without our consent.  We are anxiously awaiting Starwood's written responses to our requests for further information, legal justification, etc.  The funny thing is -- Starwood wants to talk on the phone.  They don't want to put anything in writing.  Hmmmmmmm ... I wonder why, lol!


----------



## m61376 (Oct 5, 2009)

Sue- I'd be interested in the full wording of "Appendix 'A' to Exhibit 'F'," with the procedures for reserving usage, which you have bracketed, since what you have copied can be read to indicate that the right to obtain a confirmation for a unit to be used for exchange is, in fact, in the resort documents. Of course, I don't have access to the full wording so I am only guessing what might be contained therein. 

Perhaps Davidvel will chime in here like he did before, since he clearly has the professional expertise that we don't have.

That said, Marriott certainly can and very well may choose the week to be deposited for any who opt into the new trading system IF/when it is offered. I only question whether they can make such changes on existing owners who wish to continue making all their trades in II and not convert into a points system.


----------



## SueDonJ (Oct 5, 2009)

jerseygirl said:


> ... Do you see the major differences in the disclosure language?  This "lack of disclosure" is the basis for our assertion that Starwood cannot force these changes on non-SVN members without our consent.  We are anxiously awaiting Starwood's written responses to our requests for further information, legal justification, etc.  The funny thing is -- Starwood wants to talk on the phone.  They don't want to put anything in writing.  Hmmmmmmm ... I wonder why, lol!



jerseygirl, honestly, at this point my head is swimming and I can't even begin to understand the language you provided - the question about whether or not MVCI could do with II exchanges what Starwood is doing is made that much more difficult for me because prior to this thread, I didn't know the first thing about Starwood.  Although you folks are doing a great job trying to teach us, I still wouldn't venture an opinion of whether Starwood is right or wrong because I'm completely ignorant of the Starwood product.

It's only right that Starwood be made to defend its practices based on the legalities.  I hope that can be done without the expense and time of involving the courts, hopefully in a response to your written concerns, for all of the Starwood owners.


----------



## SueDonJ (Oct 5, 2009)

m61376 said:


> Sue- I'd be interested in the full wording of "Appendix 'A' to Exhibit 'F'," with the procedures for reserving usage, which you have bracketed, since what you have copied can be read to indicate that the right to obtain a confirmation for a unit to be used for exchange is, in fact, in the resort documents. Of course, I don't have access to the full wording so I am only guessing what might be contained therein.
> 
> Perhaps Davidvel will chime in here like he did before, since he clearly has the professional expertise that we don't have.
> 
> That said, Marriott certainly can and very well may choose the week to be deposited for any who opt into the new trading system IF/when it is offered. I only question whether they can make such changes on existing owners who wish to continue making all their trades in II and not convert into a points system.



Sure, m, but it's way too much typing so I'll give you images instead.  (And you might notice that I went back and corrected the documentation of the sections that I quoted.  I didn't do any editing in the words.)

Now I'm no pro at scanning but these are the six pages of the amendment from the SurfWatch Public Offering Statement.  You might have to print them enlarged in order to read them.

















One last thing.  The SurfWatch Public Offering Statement is a 375-page book with every page being half the size of an 8.5X11 sheet, which means that every legal document pertaining to SurfWatch has been shrunk to fit on to a page in this book.  (That's why there are page numbers up in the corners of these images.)  Obviously I haven't read the whole book but I did use the Table of Contents and Titles to try to find info and rules for exchanging.

It's possible, probable, that I missed something.  But that's why I'm asking others to contribute.  It isn't that I'm trying to prove I'm right, because I don't know if I'm right or wrong!  If anything, I want no part of any new rule with any exchange system that takes away the Request First option.  So if that's what would be ahead for us MVCI owners if they do what Starwood is doing, I hope somebody can find the contract language to fight it!


----------



## SueDonJ (Oct 5, 2009)

brigechols said:


> Here is a link to the II Buyer's Guide which is a legally binding document between II and its members http://www.intervalworld.com/pdf/iw/buyers-guide.pdf. I think you would be well within your rights to request a copy of the affiliation agreement between MVCI and II.



Oh wow, thanks!  I printed everything but the lists of resorts, and will be trying to get a copy of that agreement.


----------



## gmarine (Oct 5, 2009)

Like I originally posted, I own Marriott and Starwood. As TUG members we are all owners and advocates of timeshares. Many times we may see some owners having difficulty with a management company and we may not care because we dont own a resort in that family.

Maybe its time we all stick together. When one company screws owners, we all should take notice because who knows if we are next.


----------



## m61376 (Oct 6, 2009)

Sue- Thanks for scanning that, but I can't read the double pages. I couldn't figure out a way to unblur them when enlarging them. maybe you or someone else can make out and post the pertinent passages.

And- Gmarine- I couldn't agree with you more! My guess is one company looks to the other for precedents. The first is always the hardest....


----------



## Zac495 (Oct 6, 2009)

SueDonJ said:


> I admit to knowing nothing about Starwood, but those folks here seem to be able to point to actual contract language that makes them question the legality of the recent "enhancement" of Starwood/II exchanges.  (They always seem to use that "enhancement" word when they're making changes, don't they?)
> 
> What MVCI/II contract language in the ownership documents would call in to question the legality of a similar "enhancement" for us MVCI owners?  That's the important thing to look at, isn't it?  We can talk about goodwill and customer service and a minority ownership group (TUG members, specifically) rising up in protest, but Marriott/MVCI has proven in the past that they aren't averse to "program enhancements" that devalue the usage options of our ownerships.
> 
> ...



Think about the points devaluation Marriott implemented last year (and prior years before my time). And we screamed and complained and they politely told us why it was such a great idea for us - yah - no black out dates. Yeah, right.

I , too, thank the Starwood owners for chiming in here. Though I own no Marriott, I still own a timeshare - might buy another - and yes - we'd better be prepared for anything...


----------



## m61376 (Oct 6, 2009)

Ellen- I don't know that it is fair to use devaluations in reward points programs as any comparison, since historically probably every rewards program has had periodic adjustments (which in one way or another means devaluations) which they advertise as "enhancements," but really reflect overall cost increases.

What Starwood has done, however, is vastly different. I hope it is not allowed to stand not only for the sake of all the owners affected, but somewhat selfishly I admit for the dangerous precedent it sets.


----------



## SueDonJ (Oct 6, 2009)

m61376 said:


> Sue- Thanks for scanning that, but I can't read the double pages. I couldn't figure out a way to unblur them when enlarging them. maybe you or someone else can make out and post the pertinent passages.



Like I said, m, these are legal- and letter-size documents that are copied/shrunk onto pages in a book that are half the size of a letter-size sheet.  The print quality isn't great to begin with, and it suffers further by scanning and inserting here.  Short of using photo editing software, I don't know how to make it any easier to see!  Hopefully somebody else does know, and will be able to enlarge them here.

I did type out what I thought were the pertinent passages.  As far as I can see, no other sentence in that amendment applies to confirming or using a specific reservation for exchanges.  I simply haven't found anything at all (Yet?  I'm still looking.) which could be interpreted to mean that an Owner's usage right to exchange includes the Owner having control over which specific week s/he is entitled to deposit for any exchange.



m61376 said:


> And- Gmarine- I couldn't agree with you more! My guess is one company looks to the other for precedents. The first is always the hardest....



I agree, too - it can only help for owners of the different timeshare companies to share knowledge and experiences, and TUG is the perfect forum for it.

My only caution would be that there isn't any one company in which all of those owners agree with each other about what their ownership consists of or entitles them to, nevermind combining all companies under one umbrella.  Short of a situation in which any developer/BOD/HOA is clearly performing illegally, I don't think it's realistic to think that all timeshare owners share common interests and goals.


----------



## SueDonJ (Oct 6, 2009)

m61376 said:


> Ellen- I don't know that it is fair to use devaluations in reward points programs as any comparison, since historically probably every rewards program has had periodic adjustments (which in one way or another means devaluations) which they advertise as "enhancements," but really reflect overall cost increases.
> 
> What Starwood has done, however, is vastly different. I hope it is not allowed to stand not only for the sake of all the owners affected, but somewhat selfishly I admit for the dangerous precedent it sets.



I don't know, m.  You seem to only consider MRP as a stand-alone program, which it certainly is for the millions of members who do not own an MVCI timeshare, and for the thousands who purchased MVCI timeshare(s) on the external resale market.  But for the hundreds of thousands of MVCI developer-purchasers the MRP program is a major component of their ownership.  Any devaluing of MRP benefits certainly devalues a specific usage option for that particular subgroup of owners.

And isn't that what we're discussing, devaluing a specific usage option for a particular subgroup of owners (both in Starwood, and, if the practice is extended to us, in MVCI?)

But besides all that, MVCI has devalued usage options in the past, with little regard or recourse for owners at the time, when it implemented the 12/13-month reservation rule.  That's another thing I think of when I say that we can look to MVCI's history for ownership devaluation.


----------



## Zac495 (Oct 6, 2009)

m61376 said:


> Ellen- I don't know that it is fair to use devaluations in reward points programs as any comparison, since historically probably every rewards program has had periodic adjustments (which in one way or another means devaluations) which they advertise as "enhancements," but really reflect overall cost increases.
> 
> What Starwood has done, however, is vastly different. I hope it is not allowed to stand not only for the sake of all the owners affected, but somewhat selfishly I admit for the dangerous precedent it sets.



I don't know enough to say. I wasn't really chiming in with anything valuable to say - just hope that Marriott doesn't hurt its owners worse than they already have - legal or not.


----------



## rsackett (Oct 6, 2009)

I have a question.

I have seen some folks complain about people trading all the good weeks and not leaving them for owners to use.

Each of us owns a week.  We all pay the same fees.  One can use their ownership as they wish, occupy, rent or trade.

We all have the same chances of getting one of those "Best" weeks by calling in or logging on to reserve them.  

So why should those "best" weeks be held for people that want to use them by occupying, rather than renting or trading them? 

Ray


----------



## DeniseM (Oct 6, 2009)

rsackett said:


> I have a question.
> 
> I have seen some folks complain about people trading all the good weeks and not leaving them for owners to use.
> 
> ...



Exactly!  Every owner has the right to use their week as they see fit.  If other owners are slow to call and reserve a popular week....well, the early bird gets the worm...and the timeshare!


----------



## SueDonJ (Oct 6, 2009)

rsackett said:


> I have a question.
> 
> I have seen some folks complain about people trading all the good weeks and not leaving them for owners to use.
> 
> ...



There will always be a difference of opinion between owners with this issue, that's for sure, but there isn't necessarily a right-or-wrong opinion.  The owners who want to occupy "prime" weeks at their home resorts don't think that exchangers or renters should have equal access to those weeks, and the owners who want to exchange or rent those weeks don't see why occupying owners should have any priority.  Either opinion is valid, I think.  It's even possible for any one owner to think one way one year and the other way another year, depending on his/her intended usage for that year.

From the point of view of MVCI, it isn't so much a matter of what "should or shouldn't" be as it is what "can or can't" be.  If enough complaints about any ownership facet are lodged by owners, then it only makes sense for MVCI to explore solutions that fall within the legal stipulations of the contracts.  With this particular issue, if the rule change being discussed here is prohibited by contract language then MVCI will view it as something that "can't" be done, and conversely, if it's not prohibited then it "can" be done.

Personally, I prefer a system in which owners who are occupying their home resort weeks are given a priority whenever possible - for reservations and for villa assignments (according to what's owned, not according to best available on property,) as well as for every and any thing under the sun that MVCI chooses to bestow on owners.  But that's my ideal - in the real MVCI world that's not how things work, and I certainly don't think that my ideal should be more important to MVCI than another owner's.  (But if it ever happens, you can bet I'll be one happy camper.   )


----------



## timeos2 (Oct 6, 2009)

SueDonJ said:


> There will always be a difference of opinion between owners with this issue, that's for sure, but there isn't necessarily a right-or-wrong opinion.  The owners who want to occupy "prime" weeks at their home resorts don't think that exchangers or renters should have equal access to those weeks, and the owners who want to exchange or rent those weeks don't see why occupying owners should have any priority.  Either opinion is valid, I think.  It's even possible for any one owner to think one way one year and the other way another year, depending on his/her intended usage for that year.



I seriously doubt you'll find any language in the docs that says "Owners who plan to trade (or use or buy resale, etc) will be prohibited from reserving use time/weeks(s) until all owners who plan to use ( or rent, exchange, etc) have been satisfied" or anything like it. Once you buy a season or a week you have rights to use which include renting & exchanging as well use without other restriction suddenly implied or enforced. Even new HOA rules that infringe on those base rights cannot legally be enforced (although remember that like Westgate sometimes corrupt developers/HOA's will try to fly in the face of those rules and unless challenges seemingly get away with it. Don't let that happen to your resoerts!). Hopefully Marriott has more integrity than Westgate but who knows.  

There are no ways for the HOA, management or the developer to retroactively change those original sales documents except for a super majority vote of all the owners. Almost impossible to get and seldom tried. I'm sure none has happen at Marriott.


----------



## jarta (Oct 6, 2009)

rsackett,   ...   Starwood has an internal trading system (SVN) and an external trading system (II).

Everyone who owns at a Starwood resort can reserve in season at their own resort 12 months from arrival.  At some resorts (mandatory), buying resale carries the SVN membership with the deed.  At other resorts (voluntary), SVN membership does not come with the deed.  For the resale buyers to get into the SVN system, they have to retro their voluntary unit by purchasing another developer unit.  It's expensive but the cost of the resale and developer week together are cheaper than buying two developer weeks.  Because of the cost, a substantial number of resale owners at voluntary resorts opt to stay out of the SVN.

A non-SVN owner at a Starwood resort can only reserve at the resort in season or trade through II.  SVN members can reserve in season at their resort at 12 months out, at 8 months out can reserve anywhere in the SVN system (subject to availablity) or trade through II.  (There are other options for uber-SVN owners but, generally, they are not relevant.)

Those who have only their own resort or the II trade option have found it very advantageous to reserve a prime week early and deposit it in II so that by dividing a 2-br lockoff they can get 2 very nice 2-br units elsewhere.  That's how powerful the Starwood brand currrently trades in II.

However, by the time 8 months out rolls around, the prime weeks in any use season tend to disappear for the SVN members from other resorts who would like to use them.  Starwood is of the opinion this is because all (most?; a substantial number?) of the prime week usage is not being used by owners at Starwood resorts, but by people like you who trade in through II.

So, to protect its SVN system (mostly, but not exclusively), Starwood went to II and convinced II to only accept trades based upon the week deeded in a season.  All weeks in that season will be assigned the same II trading power, but Starwood will deposit the week of its choice with II.

Nobody knows exactly how it will all work out over time, but the non-SVN members are concerned that giving them trading power that is based upon an average would be a reduction in trading power.  They are probably right, but only as a matter of degree.

The bigger Starwood wrinkle is that there are resorts that before Starwood got involved had weeks sold as 1-52 float and, later, weeks sold as float within a season.  It is still unclear whether II will set up a special weighted average for the 1-52 units.  However, if II does do that, the 1-52 traders would really be penalized if their modus operandi was to use a deeded desert summer week to annually reserve a prime winter week and then trade it in II.

The bigger problem, as I see it (and I am an attorney), is that II really controls what happens here.  No matter how weeks are weighted for trading, if II's new rules are that it will only accept a deeded week (or a week deposited by Starwood in lieu of a deeded week), it's IIs prerogative to make the rules for trading.  Those who don't like II's rules can always trade elsewhere.

The deeds and declarations merely give a use period and the right to reserve in a use period and use a trading company.  But, the deeds and declarations do not require that any trading company is forced to accept a week that would not qualify under the trading company's current rules.  And, that, I believe, is where the new II rules would be upheld.      ...   eom


----------



## SueDonJ (Oct 6, 2009)

timeos2 said:


> I seriously doubt you'll find any language in the docs that says "Owners who plan to trade (or use or buy resale, etc) will be prohibited from reserving use time/weeks(s) until all owners who plan to use ( or rent, exchange, etc) have been satisfied" or anything like it. Once you buy a season or a week you have rights to use which include renting & exchanging as well use without other restriction suddenly implied or enforced. Even new HOA rules that infringe on those base rights cannot legally be enforced (although remember that like Westgate sometimes corrupt developers/HOA's will try to fly in the face of those rules and unless challenges seemingly get away with it. Don't let that happen to your resoerts!). Hopefully Marriott has more integrity than Westgate but who knows.
> 
> There are no ways for the HOA, management or the developer to retroactively change those original sales documents except for a super majority vote of all the owners. Almost impossible to get and seldom tried. I'm sure none has happen at Marriott.



Oh, no, you certainly wouldn't expect to find language that prohibitive to any owner!  The language is clear enough that every MVCI owner has the right to occupy, rent or exchange their week(s) (and in the case of developer purchases, that exchange option extends to an exchange for MRP, as well.)

But with respect to the exchange for usage at another resort, it's only the ability to do so that is deeded - an owner can exchange through II which is the company that MVCI has contracted with, through a private arrangement with another owner, or through another exchange company that the owner has contracted with.

Whittling down even further to the specific subject of this thread which is the ability to exchange through II, the terms of that usage right - the actual procedures for doing so - do not appear to be defined in the MVCI individual owners' deeds, the Master Deed or the other ownership documents.  Those documents all reference the terms of the exchange company, II, as being the defining terms.

So although there isn't legal justification for MVCI to declare that owners who occupy will have a priority for reservations over owners who exchange or rent, it does appear that MVCI could deposit a week for exchange with II other than the one an owner reserves, if MVCI and II agree to those terms within the contract/agreement held between them.  And if those terms also happen to provide a solution to the complaints that MVCI receives from owners who have difficulties reserving "prime" weeks for occupying, well, that's a bonus for MVCI.

That's how I see it, anyway.


----------



## DeniseM (Oct 6, 2009)

jarta - you missed one very big issue, that also affects you, and all other Starwood owners, whether they are in the SVN or not:

Starwood owners can no longer do a true "request-first," with II (as owners in most other systems can.)  What that means is that you can no longer hold a reservation at your home resort, while you are waiting to see if you get an exchange through II.  In the past, you could have a reservation at your home resort to fall back on, if the II exchange didn't come through, and if it did, you deposited the reserved week.

Under the new rules, if you don't get the "request first" exchange, and you want to use your home resort instead, you lose all priority at your home resort for your season, and even for a fixed week, or an event week, so basically you can get what ever is left over.  That means that people who own high season and/or top resorts will be far less likely to exchange with II.


----------



## Stefa (Oct 6, 2009)

jarta said:


> However, by the time 8 months out rolls around, the prime weeks in any use season tend to disappear for the SVN members from other resorts who would like to use them.  Starwood is of the opinion this is because all (most?; a substantial number?) of the prime week usage is not being used by owners at Starwood resorts, but by people like you who trade in through II.



I find this hard to beilieve for two reasons:   I have never seen a report here on TUG from an SVN owner who couldn't get a prime week at a non-SVN Starwood resort.  On the other hand, I have seen many posts from non-SVN owners saying that Starwood would not allow them to deposit their reserved week into II but instead insisted on depositing a week of Starwood's choosing.   I am unconvinced that SVN owners were having difficulty getting prime weeks at non-SVN resorts due to too many prime weeks getting deposIted into II, given the fact that most non-SVN owners weren't being allowed to deposit those weeks.   When I called Starwood to deposit my reserved week they told me I could not do this and they deposited a different week on my behalf.


----------



## DeniseM (Oct 6, 2009)

Good point Stefa - especially since Starwood has never allowed owners in the Starwood vacation network to choose the weeks they deposited with II and about half the time (per TUG poll) they were not allowing non-SVN members to deposit the week of their choice, either.

I just noticed this from jarta's post:


> Starwood is of the opinion this is because all (most?; a substantial number?) of the prime week usage is not being used by owners at Starwood resorts, but by people like you who trade in through II.



jarta - where did you get that piece of info.?  Since Starwood and II have refused to make any announcement about the changes, how do you know this is Starwood's opinion?


----------



## jarta (Oct 6, 2009)

Denise,

Yes, the inability to use "*true*" "request first" affects all Starwood owners equally.  And, again, that's up to II whether to keep that option or not for Starwood traders.

If SVN members were using it, it's probably gone.  If non-SVN members were using it, it's probably gone.  (Although your qualifier of "*true*" means you know it has been changed and we are waiting to see what portions of "request first" will remain or what it will morph into.)

Maybe it's dumb to take "*true*" "request first" away.  Personally, being in SVN with all my weeks being at mandatory resorts, I don't use II very much.  I find great flexibility in the SVN system.  I am happy Starwood has tried to open up weeks for Starwood owners in SVN.  That's why I bought Starwood and why I bought mandatory for resales.  I like going to Starwood resorts.  Maybe you are a restless vacationer and now don't.

I did use II once.  Since I was SVN, Starwood chose the week to deposit.  It was still such a good trader in II that I was able to convert the deposit of a small 1-br in shoulder season into a large 1-br at the same resort in Platinum (Starwood's best) season.  That seems like a pretty good result, but probably not up to your standard of what a good II trade is.  I suggest that you will not do too shabby with Starwood picking the week to deposit in II.

You didn't want to pay the additional money to buy resale at a Starwood mandatory resort and be in SVN.  So, you willingly locked yourself into II trading.  You have often posted how smart you were to buy voluntary and you would post what you would do to game the Starwood system.  Don't cry if that turns out to have been a penny-wise but pound-foolish decision because the game is now over.

Starwood is trying to build the advantages of being in SVN.  You don't want to spend the money to be in SVN.  You and Starwood are on a collision course.

BTW, people who own at top Starwood resorts in high season don't trade away the week in II now - unless they are looking to make a 2 for 1 using an unpopular summer desert week to reserve a prime winter desert week because they have sought out and bought a 1-52 float week.  The people who spent the money to buy at top Starwood resorts in high season go to those top Starwood resorts in high season (or rent them out for a profit).       ...   eom


----------



## DeniseM (Oct 6, 2009)

jarta said:


> Starwood is trying to build the advantages of being in SVN.  You don't want to spend the money to be in SVN.  You and Starwood are on a collision course.



First of all, it would cost me $40K (minimum) to buy from the developer and requalify my 2 non-SVN weeks. Nothing on the face of this earth could convince me to give Starwood any more of my hard earned money!   And you're right, I pride myself on making timesharing work for us at no on-going cost.  We spent 4 weeks timesharing this year - and it didn't cost us a cent...

Secondly, buying into the SVN does not improve one's ability to exchange with II.  SVN members are getting the same lousy deal, and that is the topic of this thread.

By "*true* request-first," I am referring to the way owners at other resort systems STILL get to do "request first" exchanges with II...not just the way it used to be for Starwood owners.


----------



## jarta (Oct 6, 2009)

Stefa,   ...   "I am unconvinced that SVN owners were having difficulty getting prime weeks at non-SVN resorts due to too many prime weeks getting deposIted into II, given the fact that most non-SVN owners weren't being allowed to deposit those weeks."

That's just not true.  If you had a separate II account because you were not SVN, you had the right to deposit the reserved week until things changed a month or two ago.  But, it was hard to administer.

What actually happened is that when non-SVN people would call II to deposit a Starwood week, the II staff incompetently, or because of confusion by the differrence in treatment, assumed they were SVN and sent them back to Starwood.

When these non-SVN people got back to Starwood and said they were referred by II, the Starwood people assumed they were in the SVN majority and would not let them deposit the reserved week.

The same TUG Starwood posters who are complaining now about the changes at II were so incensed that they organized a campaign to harass Starwood people (even posting their phone numbers) by calling, writing and complaining.  When they weren't harassing Starwood they were harassing II.

The only success these TUG posters had was Starwood getting together with II and obviously convincing II that all owners at Starwood resorts should be treated the same, that the non-SVN members were creating problems with II and Starwood reservation people carrying out their duties and that the new changes should be adopted by II.  So, SVN was strengthened and non-SVN owner have less rights under the new II contract.

So, it happened.      ...   eom


----------



## Stefa (Oct 6, 2009)

*wow*



jarta said:


> That's just not true.  If you had a separate II account because you were not SVN, you had the right to deposit the reserved week until things changed a month or two ago.  But, it was hard to administer.
> 
> What actually happened is that when non-SVN people would call II to deposit a Starwood week, the II staff incompetently, or because of confusion by the differrence in treatment, assumed they were SVN and sent them back to Starwood.
> 
> When these non-SVN people got back to Starwood and said they were referred by II, the Starwood people assumed they were in the SVN majority and would not let them deposit the reserved week.



I don't know what to say.  I called STARWOOD and was told I could not deposit my reserved week.  I told them I purchased resale and they told me that I could not deposit my reserved week.  I called back and spoke to someone else who told me the exact same thing.  I may have had the '"right" to deposit my reserved week, but either the Starood employees I spoke with didn't know about my rights or they didn't care.

And you are correct about the old system being difficult to administer.  This supports my earlier point that Starwood's complex system is the cause of many of their owners complaints and Marriott can avoid similar pitfalls if they don't adopt such a complex system.


----------



## DeniseM (Oct 6, 2009)

[On second thought, I've decided to bow out of this thread, and take the high road, here...  Because if I say what I really think, I am going to lose my high paying moderating job!  ]


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Oct 6, 2009)

Starwood needs to make a formal announcement on their new policy.  They don't do it because they know it will be a problem for the people who originally bought from another developer, and they don't want to rile more people than they already have.  

Wait until January, when people pay their fees and expect to deposit their choices of weeks into II.  

Ending long posts with  doesn't necessarily make the things you say seem less personal, Jarta.  

Like I said before, in another thread, *WE bought under a different set of rules as non-SVN owners; you are SVN, so your rules are different*.  I don't want to be in the SVN system, _but if I must_, go ahead and give me Staroptions for my resale weeks,* or let me use my weeks as the documents the original purchasers possessed*, and thereby passed [those rights] to me in the sale.


----------



## jarta (Oct 6, 2009)

rickandcindy,   ...   I am sorry that you think my mentioning the organizing of a campaign through TUG's Starwood board to harass the people who administer Starwood and II reservations because there was confusion at II and Starwood about whether non-SNV members could deposit a reserved week under the old II rules (they could, of course) is personal.  

It's not personal.  It's just a statement of fact.

And, don't you think II and Starwood resented the bombardment of irate TUG calls and that the organized campaign contributed to the change in the rules so that all deposits now are required by II to go through Starwood for the deposit?  Don't the changes limit the chance of confusion by making everything the same for everyone?  Don't you think II would prefer it that all the non-SVN members now have to go through Starwood, rather than calling and arguing with II's reservations people?

And, please don't take this as personal, but       ...   eom


----------



## Transit (Oct 6, 2009)

jarta said:


> rickandcindy,   ...   I am sorry that you think my mentioning the organizing of a campaign through TUG's Starwood board to harass the people who administer Starwood and II reservations because there was confusion at II and Starwood about whether non-SNV members could deposit a reserved week under the old II rules (they could, of course) is personal.
> 
> It's not personal.  It's just a statement of fact.
> 
> ...



If Starwood had a online resevation system like Marriott and every other Major player  they wouln't need the Jerry Lewis phone banks and most of the issues of SVN trades,II depositing and exchanging would have been non issues.


----------



## SDKath (Oct 6, 2009)

jarta said:


> It's not personal.  It's just a statement of fact.
> 
> And, please don't take this as personal, but       ...   eom



Your "statements of fact" are SO wrong I can hardly stand it.  It also drives me nuts when people say things like "no offense" or end a negative post with a smily face .  

I think you should go back and read/study and digest the stickies on the top of the Starwood page before you go around posting all this incorrect information on the boards.  Moreover, try actually depositing a unit in II (both SVN and non - you do own both right since you are such an expert?) and try making a few trades before you contradict those of us who have spent years learning the system, learning how to use it, and then having Starwood tell us that our rights as owners are no longer ours but theirs....

Katherine


----------



## Troopers (Oct 6, 2009)

Wow.

Anyone remember the TV miniseries "V"?  Starwood tuggers have just invaded the Marriott board.  Marriott owners, you should wear those special glasses to protect yourself from this.

:rofl:


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Oct 7, 2009)

jarta said:


> rickandcindy,   ...   I am sorry that you think my mentioning the organizing of a campaign through TUG's Starwood board to harass the people who administer Starwood and II reservations because there was confusion at II and Starwood about whether non-SNV members could deposit a reserved week under the old II rules (they could, of course) is personal.
> 
> It's not personal.  It's just a statement of fact.
> 
> ...



No, I don't think so, but if you have insider information......please let us in on it.  

I doubt that many people even emailed Starwood, let alone harassed them.  Harass is a very strong word.  *WE ARE OWNERS!*  Challenging a very blatant change to our ownership is our right as owners.  What stake do you have in this, anyway?  I understand that you are happy with what you have, but some of us are not nearly as happy as you.


----------



## lovearuba (Oct 7, 2009)

*Doing Marriott owners a favor*



Troopers said:


> Wow.
> 
> Anyone remember the TV miniseries "V"? Starwood tuggers have just invaded the Marriott board. Marriott owners, you should wear those special glasses to protect yourself from this.
> 
> :rofl:


 
I am enjoying this thread, as an extremely disgruntled Marriott owner I am glad to see I am not alone.  I am also sad to see others who purchased timeshares from what they thought was a reputable company are being mistreated and have lost faith in a company they held in high regard.  Maintenance fees are too high and the benefits people thought they would get from owning are not what they thought they were sold.  Misrepresentation is wrong.  Continue to work to change the situation.


----------



## jarta (Oct 7, 2009)

SDKath,   ...   I said:  "Originally Posted by jarta  

It's not personal. It's just a statement of fact.

And, please don't take this as personal, but  ... eom" 

Your opinion is "Your "statements of fact" are SO wrong I can hardly stand it."

I had suggested that there was an organized TUG movement to protest the administrative confusion brought about by treating non-SVN members differently in II.  I suggested the "squeaky wheel" tactic contributed, in part, to the decision by II and Starwood to change the trading system.

And you suggest that I look at the stickie.  The stickie was created for complaints about the *new* II procedure on September 2: http://www.tugbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=105632

I was speaking about the organized campaign on the TUG Starwood board *prior* to the new changes.  Here's a link to the TUG thread I was talking about.  It was started this March:  http://www.tugbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=93130

Here's a link to the complaints that have been filed since the *new* II system went into effect.  The complaints are similar to the ones made here:  http://www.tugbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=105072

Here's another one started after the change to the new system:  http://www.tugbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=106202

Here's a thread started by Moderator Bill4728 on the issue *questioning whether the old II system was fair*:  http://www.tugbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=105278

Here's a thread about putting the contact information out on a stickie.  (The one you say to read.)  *However, it lists email addresses that can be used to complain to Starwood even before the poll results are in*.  The thread was started July 24:   http://www.tugbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=102935 

Here's a thread about the initial noticing that things had changed in II for the non-SVN accounts:  http://www.tugbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=104576

And, finally, here's a thread started July 23 about the procedure of reserving a prime week and then depositing it that contains a prophetic posting by a TUG non-SVN member ("I may be running into the identical problem you are. Sad but true. My weeks have been rejected three times now. *I am starting to think Starwood is onto us*."):  http://www.tugbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=102810

The non-SVN TUG members started pushing Starwood and II about their "rights."  And, it looks like Starwood figured out what was going on with II reservations and pushed right back.

Starwood can be arrogant - like most big corporations.  It sometimes does stupid things.  These new II procedures might even later be deemed to be stupid.  But, Starwood is concerned about the bottom line and strengthening its SVN system can increase its bottom line.  

Starwood, due to its economic muscle, was able to convince II not to accept deposits directly of Starwood reserved weeks.  I don't see anything in the deeds or declarations that says II must accept a reserved week.  I know others have a different opinion than I do.  That's what chat boards are about: stating opinions and discussing the issues.  

We'll have to see if there are any "rights" to deposit a Starwood reserved week if II says it won't accept the week.  But, for now, the game is over.      ...   eom


----------



## m61376 (Oct 7, 2009)

SueDonJ said:


> I don't know, m.  You seem to only consider MRP as a stand-alone program, which it certainly is for the millions of members who do not own an MVCI timeshare, and for the thousands who purchased MVCI timeshare(s) on the external resale market.  But for the hundreds of thousands of MVCI developer-purchasers the MRP program is a major component of their ownership.  Any devaluing of MRP benefits certainly devalues a specific usage option for that particular subgroup of owners.
> 
> And isn't that what we're discussing, devaluing a specific usage option for a particular subgroup of owners (both in Starwood, and, if the practice is extended to us, in MVCI?)
> 
> But besides all that, MVCI has devalued usage options in the past, with little regard or recourse for owners at the time, when it implemented the 12/13-month reservation rule.  That's another thing I think of when I say that we can look to MVCI's history for ownership devaluation.



Well, maybe we look at things very differently (which we seem to do sometimes) but I always considered any of the rewards programs bonus perks and recognize that they will likely change over time and may become less valuable since every program I know have, whether hotel, airline, department store, etc., all generally have. While I recognize that many purchasers considered this a very important aspect of their ownership, I don't know that any Marirott rep. ever advertised it as any kind of a stagnant program (and if they did it would be very wrong) and I assume that, while the ability to trade for points and the number of points given would be in the purchase documents, their redemption categories/value would not be, since these change over time. The fact that most people, because that's human nature, didn't realize when they bought that they would change like they have historically done doesn't protect them.

Although some owners found the 12/13 month rule a devaluation, I don't think it was ever intended as such, and many others found it a benefit. I think the intent was to make it easier for people to travel together, whether using their weeks consecutively or contiguously. In fact, the way it has been perverted to really be a detriment, is mostly not because of the way it was intended but because of the loophole use that many have exploited. What I mean by this is that Marriott's rule only allow for such booking if an owner is actually using their weeks that way. It was never intended to snag great weeks to use for renting or trading, or to be split later for such usage. If Marriott was actually to enforce its own rules as written, a lot of the booking issues that other owners have experienced might disappear. So it may be that the 12/13 month rule as used is more of a problem then the rule itself. Of course, regardless, if people have an issue with it whether the rule itself or the lax regulation is still Marriott's responsibility. That's why, though, I don't really agree that you can cite the 12/13 month rule as a devaluation, because IF it was used as written and intended, then the perceived unfairness might not exist. 

So, I still maintain that rewriting the rules to eradicate certain usage privileges which were always enjoyed by owners, were written or at least implied in the original purchase documents, and have historically been present and unchanged would present a legal and ethical quagmire for Marriott and that is why, of course in my opinion (and I respect your right to have a differing opinion no matter how much I disagree with it), Marriott will not ultimately penalize any specific subset of current owners.

Of course getting back to the discussion on hand, IF they were to choose what week to deposit for any new system they MIGHT implement, which would be voluntary for owners to join, that would not be implementing a rule that benefited one subset of owners at the expense of another, not would it be violating any current rules and regulations since the program would be voluntary. The only issue is whether Marriott might make any such changes to deposits of owners opting to continue their weeks based ownership and continue business as usual with trading in II for both internal and external trades; IF they opted to do so, that would be a big issue, again imho.

Furthermore, it is interesting to note, although not helpful to the Starwood owners affected so I am NOT suggesting that Starwood's changes in the ownership program are in any way justified, that there is a basic difference here. In essence, Starwood is trying to right what they perceive as a "wrong" in their system, in that one set of owners actually had preference in making deposits into II than another set of owners (curiously, with the balance tipped towards resale buyer at certain resorts) and not to create 2 classes of ownership, which is something Starwood always has had. So Starwood is trying to move towards a more uniform ownership and exchange model, except for the privileges which each group enjoyed or were not entitled to as spelled out and existed from their original purchase. They are trying to level the playing field, although I do agree with what the Starwood owners largely have been posting about the inequity because that's not what they bought into and presumably that's not the system as outlined in their purchase documents. I do think that's very different, though, from Marriott suddenly creating a caste system, no matter how you want to couch it as "people deserving what they get" as some people have suggested from time to time when the resale versus direct purchasing discussions got a bit heated. However mis-intentioned, Starwood seemingly is trying to create more uniformity.


----------



## DeniseM (Oct 7, 2009)

_Marriott Owners:  Is anyone wondering why jarta is over here on the Marriott board prostelyzing for Starwood?  _

Because of his over-the-top endorsement of Starwood, he has no credibility on the Starwood Board, so he moved over here.  The response to his pro-Starwood posts on the Starwood Board has been overwhelmingly negative, so a few weeks ago he picked up his toys and went home, vowing never to return.

_But he really sounds like he knows what he's talking about, doesn't he?_

Yeah, he talks a good story, and after all, he is a lawyer, but in reality, he is a relatively new timeshare owner that has only done *ONE EXCHANGE *in his whole life!  But to read his posts, you'd think he was an expert on Starwood, and II, and exchanging.... 

*Bottom line - don't drink the Koolaide!*


----------



## Bill4728 (Oct 7, 2009)

This isn't the place for starwood owners to be discussing the pro & cons of starwood new relationship to II.  

Because of this I'm closing this thread.


----------

