# CPGV changing its name?



## AKE (May 25, 2011)

Any truth to this or is it just another rumour?


----------



## AwayWeGo (May 25, 2011)

*Heard It On The Grape Vine ?*




AKE said:


> Any truth to this or is it just another rumour?


What grape vine are you tuned into for this item ? 

( Just wondering. ) 

_Full Disclosure*:*_  We like Cypress Pointe -- both the original timeshare resort & the Grande Villas.  We formerly owned a 3BR floating diamond-season lock-off unit at Cypress Pointe Grande Villas.  We currently own a floating diamond-season EEY 3BR lock-off unit at the original Cypress Pointe Resort ("Phase One"), right across the street from Cypress Pointe Grande Villas.  Our most recent Cypress Pointe timeshare vacation was at the Grande Villas in January 2011 -- a newly renovated 1BR lock-off "B" unit, the final time we stayed there as owners.  Before that, in January 2010, we snagged a 3BR unit for 7*,*500 points + exchange fee via RCI _Instant Exchange_. 

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


----------



## timeos2 (May 25, 2011)

*Not a rumor but what it will be isn't known yet*

The two exisiting Cypress Pointe timeshares with that as their name (Cypress Pointe Resort - aka Phase 1 and Cypress Pointe Grandevillas - aka Phase 2 and legally known as Cypress Pointe Resort II) have shared the name as well as a common check in / clubhouse since they were built. As of April 30, 2011 the two independently owner controlled Associations reached an agreement to end all shared expenses and the shared front desk operation. The ability of registered guests at either resort to use the common areas / amenities of the other is not affected.  

As part of that new agreement Cypress Pointe Grandevillas will be constructing a new Check In / clubhouse building near their entrance (where the tennis court is now) for their front desk, management offices and at least a new (second - we have one already in the existing Clubhouse) exercise room - there may be more features I'm not aware of.  It is anticipated that will open in about one year - depends of course on the construction being complete. 

Also included in the agreement is a change in name for CPGV.  They have not announced yet what that name will be but by agreement it cannot contain Cypress Point(e) or any derivative of those.  That should be announced  within the next couple months. 

The main driver behind this change is the long standing desire by both Associations to stand on their own. We each are rightly proud of our facilities and guest experience and being tied even in a small way to the other operation for scores / opinions have, in our opinions, hurt the resorts. The original developer apparently felt that giving the impression of being one mid-sized (for Orlando - large for most areas) resort was better than being two smaller ones.  The Owner Associations, after trying to make that work for over 15 years, believe that each will do better on it's own strengths and operated as each side feels is best.  Trying to compromise on so many aspects of operations/maintenance has proven to be far more work than any savings the sharing provided. 

Just to be clear the rights of owners/guests to use the common areas at both resorts will NOT be changed. We will continue to share the use of the pools, the new & original Clubhouses, mini-golf, tennis, etc.  What changes are that the two Associations will no longer split the expenses for any of those and each will pay 100% for the items located on their property. 

This is a major change in operation for both resorts.  The name change will help make it clear that we are two separate resorts that just happen to share common elements. We are looking forward to the change and think it will improve the guest experience at both resorts.


----------



## AKE (May 25, 2011)

All I can say is you have got to be kidding (but obviously not).  From my persepctive neither side understands branding or marketing or customer retention and instead are caught up in this never-ending  battle  between the 2 phases where both will come out loosers from a customer perspective.  I am curious if any studies were done by either side? / focus groups? / owners' asked for input (I sure wasn't and I don't think that any others were either as otherwise this topic would have appeared here a long time ago)? possibly a consultant hired to do an analysis who wasn't caught up in the politics and could look at things from an unbiased viewpoint?

I am assuming that this is not a legal name change as the cost would be horrendous to change all the documentation but rather something instead of CPGV? (If I had to guess, and I have no inside knowledge, I would think that it will be Grand Villas although from a marketing / branding perspective the name should begin with A or B as ths will be ahead of Cypress Pointe (C) in any search and thus a distinct advantage - ) Unfortunately the usage of the common facilites between the 2 resorts cannot be severed - severing all ties between the resorts would be a good thing because as long as you are joined at the hip, the ongoing bickering will continue, no matter what you do / do not call yourself.  (This reminds me of the time when a major soft drink vendor tried to rebrand itself.  It didn't last too long before the 'new' was thrown wayside and the original restored - unfortunately this will not be an option with this scenario).

I just realized something - if each HOA will now cover 100% of the maintenance costs of the facilities on their own property, then is there anything in any agreement which prevents an HOA from levying discriminatory usage fees?  As an example, phase I guests who want to use the mini-putt will now pay $50/week/unit whereas phase II guest will only pay $15/week/unit (or some number to that effect).  Simiilarly, phase II guests who want to use the volcano pool will pay $5/day (wrist bracelets would be used to indicate where each guest is registered) whereas phase I guests will have free usage of the pool. Under  this scenario both sides can still use the shared facilities but the cost will be dependent on where you are registered as a guest.  If this train of thought is extrapolated to the nth degree then which side will come out the winner? It could get very interesting -


----------



## AwayWeGo (May 26, 2011)

*Never The Twain Shall Meet.*




AKE said:


> I am curious if any studies were done by either side? / focus groups? / owners' asked for input (I sure wasn't and I don't think that any others were either as otherwise this topic would have appeared here a long time ago)? possibly a consultant hired to do an analysis who wasn't caught up in the politics and could look at things from an unbiased viewpoint?


I am sure the idea of partly joined yet legally separate timeshare resorts made perfect sense to the timeshare developer.  No doubt the arrangement was no problem to either HOA when both were developer-controlled. 

Later, after both resorts sold out & kicked out the developer as HOA-BOD majority & installed independent, owner-oriented directors, that's when the difficulties inherent in the arrangement started to be felt. 

At Phase Two, there was an unavoidable sense bordering on resentment over paying most of the cost of the check-in operation, while Phase One called the shots -- i.e., hired & supervised the front-desk staff & made all the operational decisions.  That's because the clubhouse & check-in facility are owned & operated by Phase One even though Phase Two accounts for a larger share of actual check-ins. 

For many exchange guests at both phases, there was recurring confusion over the apparent unity of the Cypress Pointe timeshares that were -- & are -- separate resorts with their own RCI & I-I resort I.D. numbers & everything.   

When I was a (resale) owner at both Cypress Pointe phases simultaneously, I was struck by the extreme contrast in communication styles between the 2 Cypress Pointe timeshares.  Phase One is open & inviting, taking maximum advantage of internet channels (here & at Yahoo) for 2-way communications.  The Phase One HOA-BOD lets owners in on just about everything they're mulling over & owners chime in with their own ideas.  Not only that, the resort manager's weekly report goes up on the Owner section of the Phase One web site.

By contrast, Phase Two holds all cards very close to the vest at all times.  The rumor mill typically runs way ahead of actual decisions & developments over there.  The Phase 2 HOA-BOD does not participate in any Yahoo forums & the information made known via the Phase Two Web Site is limited to done deals. 

_Full Disclosure*:*_  I once was a candidate for the Cypress Pointe Grande Villas HOA-BOD, with the idea in mind of emulating Phase One's open communication practices if I got elected.  As it happened, I got soundly thrashed in the voting & proxy counting, so I never got the opportunity -- assuming the other BOD members would have gone along had I been elected (not a sure assumption).  As a Grande Villas ex-owner now, I still have affection for the actual resort & will enjoy staying there again if we have more good luck in snagging reservations via _Last Call_ & _Instant Exchange_. 

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


----------



## timeos2 (May 27, 2011)

AKE said:


> All I can say is you have got to be kidding (but obviously not).  From my persepctive neither side understands branding or marketing or customer retention and instead are caught up in this never-ending  battle  between the 2 phases where both will come out loosers from a customer perspective.



Until you try to operate under these restrictions it is impossible to know how tough it is. As Alan pointed out the CPR Association does own and operate the existing Clubhouse - thus control the front desk. That despite the fact that 60%+ of the activity at that desk is CPGV's.  We tried for over 15 years and three agreements to operate a shared desk to hopefully maximize efficiency and hold costs to a minimum.  It hasn't worked as both sides continue to be confused by owners(!) and guests as being one big operation able to freely move guests to/from each resort when in fact they cannot.  As I mentioned it appears to be done by the original developer but they never thought through how it would complicate operations when they are legally independent and cannot mix inventory.  The only areas that can truly be shared are the common areas and splitting expenses on those has not proven to provide any savings. 

It is, in the opinion of both Association Board's, in the best interest of all to make it clear we operate two completely independent resorts at least in part by separating the check in/out functions to separate areas as well as clearly establishing different ID's.  We already have separate RCI/II designations and totally independent inventory.  Keeping closely related names simply confuses owners and guests rather than giving name recognition.  

Cypress Pointe Resort will keep it's original name and address.  CPGV will take on a new DBA (NOT changing the legal designation as that would be cost prohibitive) as well as a new physical address (we have shared the Clubhouse address as the one for both resorts until now).  The only real confusion may be for those that have stayed at CPGV and identify that resort as what they consider to be "Cypress Pointe Resort".  For them it will have to be made clear that only the original resort buildings are operated under that name and CPGV will still be the same resort it was but with a new ID.  That shouldn't be tough to accomplish.  

After a short period of acclimation most should understand that there are two resorts and booking one does not allow you to stay at the other at will. It should also help clear up the scores so each side gets ranked on what they do/offer rather than what the other did/didn't do/offer or the physical units they offer.  After over a decade of trying to make it work I'm convinced it never would.  Thus the new attempt to clear up confusion by creating two distinct resorts 100% independent of each other.  Unlike Coke we don't have to deal with sales - we are sold out.  We just need a clear identity and rankings from owners and guests as does CPGV under whatever ID they choose to take on.


----------



## AwayWeGo (Jun 5, 2011)

*Villas Of Lake Buena Vista ?*

Grande Villas Of Lake Buena Vista ?

Buena Vista Grande Villas ?

Grande Vistas ?

Vacation Vistas ?

Vacation Villas ?

Vinings Way Villas ?

The Vinings ?​
The sky is the limit for new name ideas -- just so the new name does not too closely resemble the name of another timeshare resort & does not use the word "cypress" or "pointe."

Any creative suggestions ?

Whatever the powers that be might have under consideration remains a tightly held secret. 

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


----------



## carl2591 (Jul 17, 2011)

AwayWeGo said:


> Grande Villas Of Lake Buena Vista ?
> 
> Buena Vista Grande Villas ?
> 
> ...






I like "Grande Villas Lake Buena Vista".. aka GVLBV..  :whoopie:​


----------



## timeos2 (Jul 17, 2011)

And the winner will be (subject to proper approvals):

Grandevillas Resort.  

I'm not sure how it will be spelled (Grand Villas - Grande Villas - Grandevillas) but we were told that is the name they prefer. It seems to keep a recognizable name while eliminating the confusion with Cypress Pointe Resort.  Not a bad choice imo.


----------



## pedro47 (Jul 18, 2011)

Will both resorts still be in The Club and are there any changes for Club members?


----------



## AwayWeGo (Jul 18, 2011)

*Carving In Stone Is Easier Than Amending The Condo Association Documents.*




timeos2 said:


> And the winner will be (subject to proper approvals):
> 
> Grandevillas Resort.
> 
> I'm not sure how it will be spelled (Grand Villas - Grande Villas - Grandevillas) but we were told that is the name they prefer. It seems to keep a recognizable name while eliminating the confusion with Cypress Pointe Resort.  Not a bad choice imo.


They can change all the stationery & the big sign out front, no problem. 

They can (try to) get I-I & RCI to pick up on the new name. 

They can re-do their timeshare web site.

But chances are they will have to leave the IPO documents, timeshare name & all, just the way they are, meaning that for at least a few official purposes the resort will still be formally known as _Cypress Pointe Resort II_.  

So it goes. 

_Full Disclosure*:*_  We were proud (resale) owners there 2003-2010, our 1st eBay timeshare purchase.  

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


----------



## timeos2 (Jul 18, 2011)

pedro47 said:


> Will both resorts still be in The Club and are there any changes for Club members?



It shouldn't change anything for owners except that DRM (Diamond Resorts Management) will be the management for Grandevillas Resort which should mean any benefits offered by Diamond for members at resorts they manage may be in effect for GVR.  Both resorts remain DRI Club resorts (as well as RCI, II).  CPR also remains in the VRI Var*iety exchange program.


----------



## timeos2 (Aug 18, 2011)

Official changes as reported today:

New name:

Grande Villas Resort

NEW address:

12105 Turtle Cay Lane Circle
Orlando, FL 32836

PHONE: 407-238-2300

EMAIL: cpgv@cypresspointe2.com

As of 9/1/11 the management of the resort will change from VRI (Vacation Resorts International) to DRI (Diamond Resorts International).


----------



## pedro47 (Aug 18, 2011)

timeos2 said:


> Official changes as reported today:
> 
> New name:
> 
> ...



I feel the cost of managment of the two (2) resorts will either increase or decrease for one resort.


----------



## AKE (Aug 18, 2011)

Any idea what was behind the change from VRI to DRI for phase 2?


----------



## timeos2 (Aug 18, 2011)

AKE said:


> Any idea what was behind the change from VRI to DRI for phase 2?



Each resort in the master Cypress Pointe development (Cypress Pointe Resort Grande Villas Resort and Westgate/Blue Tree Resort) are independently operated. The GVR Board went out for bids and decided to change management companies. As to the exact factors that led to that choice we have not been told. I assume owners will get information about the how & why of the change.


----------



## AKE (Aug 20, 2011)

Wonder if phase 1 will also switch if the deal is better?


----------



## AwayWeGo (Aug 20, 2011)

*Don't Hold Your Breath.*




AKE said:


> Wonder if phase 1 will also switch if the deal is better?


Strong doubts about that. 

The deal would be have to be fantastically better, which is unlikely to say the least. 

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


----------



## timeos2 (Aug 20, 2011)

AKE said:


> Wonder if phase 1 will also switch if the deal is better?



The Phase 1 Board is always looking to obtain THE best deal for our owners. Our current management contract runs through 2014. However sections of it may be up for change or renegotiation prior to that date.  We have never closed our process to any qualified bidder.

Last year we changed our Accounting from VRI to another third party, Barkan. We could, but currently don't plan to, make other changes as well.


----------



## vkrn (Aug 29, 2011)

Interesting that I got a letter today from "The Cypress Pointe II Condominium Association, Inc" concerning the new management company, Diamond Resorts Management, Inc. Nothing in the letter about the name change. The resort continued to be referred to as Cypress Pointe Grande Villas. Also included with the letter was the proposed 2012 budget which included NO INCREASE in maintenance fees for this year.


----------



## timeos2 (Aug 29, 2011)

vkrn said:


> Interesting that I got a letter today from "The Cypress Pointe II Condominium Association, Inc" concerning the new management company, Diamond Resorts Management, Inc. Nothing in the letter about the name change. The resort continued to be referred to as Cypress Pointe Grande Villas. Also included with the letter was the proposed 2012 budget which included NO INCREASE in maintenance fees for this year.



The three page letter I saw includes the name change at the bottom of page 1. It is being fully implemented during 2012 but has already been done with vendors.


----------



## timeos2 (Aug 31, 2011)

Here is a copy of page one of the 3 page letter to owners. Note the highligted last paragraph that talks about the new name for the resort. It makes it clear the change is underway. The legal name for the development - Cypress Pointe II - will not/cannot be changed as it would require every deed to be altered and refiled - not going to happen.  But the DBA and "common name" no longer includes "Cypress Pointe" as there is only one location with that name now.


----------

