# Straw poll  ** for Royal Mayan owners only **



## X-ring (Mar 30, 2012)

Based on what we know, are you inclined to vote in favor (i.e. YES) or against (i.e. NO) to the current proposal to extend the RM for 15 years in exchange for a $100 admin fee and surrender of your residual rights?

A simple Yes or No only please - save opinions and editorials for other threads.

----------

I vote *YES*


----------



## kenie (Mar 30, 2012)

For us a No.

We love the Royals, but the the week isn't usable anymore because of work commitments.
We'll pick up a different week.


----------



## rwpeterson (Mar 30, 2012)

*Is this speculation or is this a choice?*

Is this a question on the survey?


----------



## X-ring (Mar 30, 2012)

rwpeterson said:


> Is this a question on the survey?



The question is - *"are you inclined to vote yes or no to the current proposal to extend the RM for 15 years in exchange for a $100 admin fee and surrender of your residual rights?"*

It does assume knowledge/awareness of the current survey which I hadn't thought necessary to repeat - if the question as posed can be made less nebulous, feel free to suggest.  TIA


----------



## Ridewithme38 (Mar 30, 2012)

What percentage needs to vote "No" for them not to be able to extend it?


----------



## X-ring (Mar 30, 2012)

Ridewithme38 said:


> What percentage needs to vote "No" for them not to be able to extend it?



The answer is contain in the proposal - if you're a RM member and eligible to vote, please read it before voting here.


----------



## kenie (Mar 30, 2012)

Yes is to extend, no is to end... correct??


----------



## alfie (Mar 30, 2012)

No, end it, I will be very lucky to last another 15 years...


----------



## urban5 (Mar 30, 2012)

I voted in the affirmative


----------



## mlwlpt (Mar 30, 2012)

I vote NO to extend for 15 years


----------



## dmorea (Mar 30, 2012)

Count me in as a No to extend


----------



## toutatis (Mar 31, 2012)

*I vote no*

If the resort is only worth $40M I vote they extend for 15 years and then sell with our residual intact.  i know that is not a current option but if they can extend with out the residual, then they can extend with the residual.  We are its a lose-lose for the owners right now with our current choices.


----------



## Ellis2ca (Mar 31, 2012)

*Reasons why I vote: NOT TO VOTE (which is = "NO")*



toutatis said:


> If the resort is only worth $40M I vote they extend for 15 years and then sell with our residual intact.  i know that is not a current option but if they can extend with out the residual, then they can extend with the residual.  We are its a lose-lose for the owners right now with our current choices.



I vote NOT TO VOTE, which is equivalent to a vote "NOT TO EXTEND" and to sell the resort as the contract says.   If they sell it as a unit, or they sell it as 10,000 timeshare weeks, I am satisfied because that is what the contract says.   

The developers would never sell it as a unit, because it is worth MUCH LESS as a unit than selling it to 10,000 different owners... We will get "little" but they will get "zero".   They are not stupid.  They are astute businessmen and they will do what is best for us and for them.

And just for the record: I don't believe that baloney that the Royal Mayan is only worth $40,000,000.    The land alone is worth much more... 10,000 square meters of beach property on the best beach in CanCun... Who are you kidding?  

PLUS the buildings which are all first class!!!   

$40,000,000 is NOT TRUE, FALSE, and A LIE... 

Whoever says this is lying and believes we are all blind and deaf and dumb.

The reason I am not going to vote is because this whole vote is not valid in any way.   If 99% vote YES, I cannot and will not be forced to accept a 15 year extension and zero residual value at the end.  

I refuse to pay $100 or to sign any papers extending anything.   I will not pay maintainance fees and I will demand that the property has to be sold.  The property is in a trust and the trust is overseen by a bank.  They can't do what they pretend to do.  

If there is a lawsuit, I guarantee it will explode into atomic war.   But I am getting ahead of myself, I am sure there will NOT be a lawsuit because Richard Sutton will never break his word.    I don't know whose idea this is to do this straw vote, but except as information, it is not legally worth the paper it is written on.

I am not buying 15 years unless there is residual value at the end, especially not, since they can raise maintainance fees stratospherically at their whim.

This is a straw vote, the outcome is not going to change the contract and there is no provision in the contract for a vote to decide whether to extend or not.  

So, cool it... Whatever the outcome of this vote will be, it is not valid for anything except as a curious aberration, probably from some wise guys who wish they can convince us to give up our residual values, and then they would buy the property after 15 years.

Over my dead body, they will.

- Ellis


----------



## turbomachines (Apr 10, 2012)

*Royal Mayan*

I will vote No to extension .All it means is you lose all your rights , but promise to continue playing Maintenance and Taxes for the next 15 years!!
Negative to extension. 
I received a letter today , Postmarked  28 March. from USA.

The enclosed FAQ says the owners will not get back their original residual value , but much less. 
Does anybody have even a ballpark idea of how much residual value will be realized? or where to find out?

dino
dinoparekh@yahoo.com


----------



## turbomachines (Apr 10, 2012)

X-ring said:


> Based on what we know, are you inclined to vote in favor (i.e. YES) or against (i.e. NO) to the current proposal to extend the RM for 15 years in exchange for a $100 admin fee and surrender of your residual rights?
> 
> A simple Yes or No only please - save opinions and editorials for other threads.
> 
> ...


ROYAL MAYAN 
I am voting negative.
Basically you agree to pay maintenance  taxes for the next 15 yrs and give up residual rights.
I also received a letter today to the effect that residual value will be much less than expected.
DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY IDEA OR BALL PARK AS TO HOW MUCH RESIDUAL  IS POSSIBLE?? tHE LETTER SAYS IT IS AROUND $ 40 MILLION, but it is to be divided among how many people??
I read somewhere else that Royal vacation club paid out the residual of 35,000$ to those who didnot extend  mebership.


----------



## pjrose (Apr 10, 2012)

turbomachines said:


> ROYAL MAYAN
> I am voting negative.
> *Basically you agree to pay maintenance  taxes for the next 15 yrs and give up residual rights.*
> I also received a letter today to the effect that residual value will be much less than expected.
> ...



Do any other resorts offer anything at the end of the RTU period?  I think that the basic idea here is that your residual (or the percent potentially offered) goes toward buying another 15 year RTU, with no residual, just like in other TSs.

I assume you mean Vacation Club International, AKA Club Internaçional de Cancun, AKA The Royal Cancun?  No, they did not.  Those who did not extend got back their full original purchase price over several years, whatever that original purchase price was.  Few if any were that high!


----------



## KarenLK (Apr 11, 2012)

I can't imagine any residuals as high as 35,000. I had 2 units, so mine were 9900 and 4900. Maybe someone had more than a few units.


----------



## geoffb (Apr 11, 2012)

turbomachines said:


> DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY IDEA OR BALL PARK AS TO HOW MUCH RESIDUAL  IS POSSIBLE?? tHE LETTER SAYS IT IS AROUND $ 40 MILLION, but it is to be divided among how many people??


Well, if I recall correctly the Mayan has just under 200 units and 51 weeks so more than 10,000 membership weeks.

-G


----------



## pjrose (Apr 12, 2012)

geoffb said:


> Well, if I recall correctly the Mayan has just under 200 units and 51 weeks so more than 10,000 membership weeks.
> 
> -G



which roughly averages to $4K per week.....but first take off all those taxes, fees, commissions.......


----------



## Ellis2ca (Apr 13, 2012)

pjrose said:


> which roughly averages to $4K per week.....but first take off all those taxes, fees, commissions.......



We are ALL going to lose if the developers go through with this scatter brained idea, but the ones who are going to lose the MOST are going to be the DEVELOPERS and here is why: 

If they sell it to a third party for, let's say $100,000,000 (not 40,000,000...) they still will not have enough to repay us 100% of residuals... So THEY will get ZERO, even if they sold it for $100,000,000.  

But not only will they get ZERO if they sold for $100,000,000... they will ALSO lose aprox. 10,000 member-weeks paying them aprox $1000 dollars per week for MAINTAINANCE... that is $10,000,000 PER YEAR income, of which a good part of it is THEIR BONUSES and SALARIES.

Trust me, if they really like to BLEED, then they should sell the Royal Mayan to a third party, as they so stupidly say they are going to do.   

I am sure they would love if we were ALL STUPID and agree to EXTEND our membership for 15 years at the end of which we have ZERO residual value, and give them the Royal Mayan for free... 

But we're not all that stupid... they can't do that, because it is in a trust, and the Bank is not going to do what the developers wish... and if they try that, there will be legal atomic war... 

Do not for a moment think that Mexican Courts would let them pull such a swindle.  If they would try such a stunt, there are 10,000 Royal Mayan owners who can pay for the best criminal and civil lawyers,  and I am sure we would cremate them, because the contract does not say they can do such a thing.

Believe me, they won't try to go that route.   They know they will lose.  It would not be a little argument at Procuraduria del Consumidor... it would be a serious fight in Criminal Courts, for fraud, etc...  They wouldn't take this route.  It is not in their best interest.  

Their best interest is that we should get our residuals, so that they will also get an equal share.  That is how we bought, that is why we bought, that is how it is going to be.

The resort will either be SOLD to a third party, in which case it will not be a Royal Resort anymore, and in which case we lose and they lose... and there will be no legal fight...  

Or it will be resold to us or somebody else as a timeshare, as they did with V.C.I., and it will continue as a Royal Resort and we'll be happy and they will be happy, and there will be no legal fight.   

But if they try to force anything else, there will be legal atomic war.

- Ellis


----------



## pjrose (Apr 13, 2012)

Ellis2ca said:


> . . .
> 
> If they sell it to a third party for, let's say $100,000,000 (not 40,000,000...) they still will not have enough to repay us 100% of residuals... So THEY will get ZERO, even if they sold it for $100,000,000.
> 
> ...


----------



## ArtinCA (Apr 26, 2012)

I voted No.
Hopefully this election is not fixed as are some elections are in Mexico.


----------



## papeterie (May 10, 2012)

*Staw Poll - the latest*

Our close friends just got back from 2 weeks at RS - they own a lot of weeks at 3 of the resorts and are pretty well connected to the staff from their many weeks there.  They were told RM owners would have a choice - 15 year reup or out (same as the straw poll)  When you think about it, as a choice, this wouldn't be so bad as they could pay more residuals to the owners opting out and those who want to stay could do so.  Then add a third option - using your residuals to buy a 15 year extension on a different week/villa.  With these 3 options, I think most people would be happy.  There are probably a lot of us who don't want to "rebuy" and/or many who simply own the wrong weeks from when they originally purchased.


----------



## wbk215 (Jun 14, 2012)

I voted NO.  I do not want to be tied up paying maintenance fees for fifteen more years.


----------



## Carolyn (Jun 14, 2012)

We own 2 weeks at The Royal Mayan and I never received the survey. How do I get it? Thanks.


----------

