• A few of the most common links here on the forums for newbies and guests!
  • The TUGBBS forums are completely free and open to the public and exist as the absolute best place for owners to get help and advice about their timeshares for more than 30 years!

    Join Tens of Thousands of other Owners just like you here to get any and all Timeshare questions answered 24 hours a day!
  • TUG started 31 years ago in October 1993 as a group of regular Timeshare owners just like you!

    Read about our 31st anniversary: Happy 31st Birthday TUG!
  • TUG has a YouTube Channel to produce weekly short informative videos on popular Timeshare topics!

    Free memberships for every 50 subscribers!

    Visit TUG on Youtube!
  • TUG has now saved timeshare owners more than $24,000,000 dollars just by finding us in time to rescind a new Timeshare purchase! A truly incredible milestone!

    Read more here: TUG saves owners more than $24 Million dollars
  • Sign up to get the TUG Newsletter for free!

    Tens of thousands of subscribing owners! A weekly recap of the best Timeshare resort reviews and the most popular topics discussed by owners!
  • Our official "end my sales presentation early" T-shirts are available again! Also come with the option for a free membership extension with purchase to offset the cost!

    All T-shirt options here!
  • A few of the most common links here on the forums for newbies and guests!
  • The TUGBBS forums are completely free and open to the public and exist as the absolute best place for owners to get help and advice about their timeshares for more than 30 years!

    Join Tens of Thousands of other Owners just like you here to get any and all Timeshare questions answered 24 hours a day!

Sunset Harbor to vote on terminating Hyatt management contract

GTLINZ said:
So now the question is - based on this current failure to launch, how long will SH remain contractually tied to MVW? This indirectly affects other HRC (and even HPP) owners and will tell us how long before this vote could come up again.

I also may have missed something, but it sounds like the failed vote threshold was disclosed - but not the voting percentages?
Click to expand...
I did not hear any percentages, I was wondering as well.
 
For those on both sides of the vote, happy hour is only a few hours away and Key West is still Key West. Best to all.
 
Kal,

I really don't think all hope is lost to leave MWC if that's what it comes down to. People just had to have more information that proved it necessary. They didn't have it this time around. I don't think MWC can move fast enough to gain full control - not that many people will be selling their weeks so MWC won't be able to ROFR. In addition, they have to know that even if the next contract is for 3 years, there is ALWAYS a way to break a contract. If they don't shape up and make some changes, owners can always take action. Yes, that takes money but I'm pretty sure we've got owners who are attorneys who would be more than happy to do pro bono. Bottom line is MWC doesn't want to lose SH and I think there will be some good faith negotiations between them and the BOD.

Again, I'm going to make the push for the "marginal" member to resign or be removed from the BOD. If it was just a matter of not agreeing with other BOD members, that would be one thing. But, the outright lying, use of privacy protected information, backdoor channeling to get "No" votes when they voted "Yes" - that is NOT ok. There are genuine concerns about their integrity. Time to take action on this and put a stop to it.

Kal said:
Marriott is going to turn us upside down and shake every dollar out of our pockets. Right now we have at least 3 very hard nose BOD members who will put up a good fight. That should be enough to do the best. We can deal with a marginal member who "plays both sides", as long as she is not disruptive in moving forward. That's the problem. Most owners pay little if any attention to the big picture. When there is a voice which muddies the water, the fail safe position is vote NO.

It's bad enough that the roll-out could have been much better, but Marriott will be singing a happy tune, all the way to the bank.
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kal
JanT said:
Time to take action on this and put a stop to it.
Click to expand...

I agree with Kal. This was the owners' best chance. MVC will ROFR everything they can to make sure this has no chance in the future. The owners' anger over mismanagement caught them by surprise -- hence the strong-arming and cat-fishing tactics.
 
Hi Ryan,

Hope y'all are doing well and enjoying life and lots of travel!

829 owners (some of whom had multiple weeks). Total of 52.8% of ownership voted. 2/3's of the vote was required to pass each item but that wasn't met. They did not reveal the split of "No" vs "Yes" votes. It would be interesting to know but I suspect the majority of votes were "No."

We're trying to get over to Hawaii again this year but not sure if it's going to happen or not. Too much going on. When are you headed there again? Heck, let's get a bunch of us to get a trip there at the same time. That would be fun!

sjsharkie said:
Hi Jan

Hope all is well with you and thanks for the info.

Did they say 829 votes or 829 owners? Curious because 1 owner may have multiple weeks and EOY owners only get 50% voting power compared to EY owners.

Also did they say what the threshold requirement was? Curious how close it got - I wonder if Hyatt voted any of their ownership or chose to sit out hoping not to reach the threshold.

Hope to see you in Hawaii again some time.

Ryan

Sent from my SM-G781U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
 
We'll see. I'm not sure MWC is going to go on a buying spree. Time will tell. It might have been our best chance but unfortunately, it was so poorly presented to owners there was no way it was going to pass.

ScoopKona said:
I agree with Kal. This was the owners' best chance. MVC will ROFR everything they can to make sure this has no chance in the future. The owners' anger over mismanagement caught them by surprise -- hence the strong-arming and cat-fishing tactics.
Click to expand...
 
chrisbellows said:
If you want to buy Don Heisler on the SH BOD is the guy to contact ..... he's great to work with and with the market crashing you might find some good deals (you can find his info on the web). I see you own at Windward Pointe, I love that resort as well.
Click to expand...
thanks
 
GTLINZ said:
So now the question is - based on this current failure to launch, how long will SH remain contractually tied to MVW? This indirectly affects other HRC (and even HPP) owners and will tell us how long before this vote could come up again.

I also may have missed something, but it sounds like the failed vote threshold was disclosed - but not the voting percentages?
Click to expand...
Privately, BOD members are saying that the quorum was achieved but the no votes were overwhelming more than the yes votes!
 
Privately, BOD members are saying that the quorum was achieved but the no votes were overwhelming
Click to expand...
So you are saying that the BOD lied to the ownership about outcome of voting during a public meeting? If true, malfeasance indeed.
 
ScoopKona said:
I agree with Kal. This was the owners' best chance. MVC will ROFR everything they can to make sure this has no chance in the future. The owners' anger over mismanagement caught them by surprise -- hence the strong-arming and cat-fishing tactics.
Click to expand...
Disagree that "MVC will ROFR everything". I don't think Portfolio is a strong enough product, and MVC is still dealing with the Welk integration so not sure the priority is invest in more buybacks @ SH. And I suspect the vote wasn't even close -- I doubt they are worried about acquiring more intervals to increase voting power. As I said before, this is a different ownership makeup from Aspen... the majority of owners will never likely vote their proxy unless they are extremely frustrated or angry.

I think they'll continue to get units on the cheap through mortgage and HOA foreclosures (assuming there is an agreement with the HOA to do that), but wouldn't anticipate a huge influx otherwise through the trust. Sunset Harbor by nature is expensive and there are cheaper Hyatt properties to pump into the trust to manufacture points...
 
Last edited:
JanT said:
We're trying to get over to Hawaii again this year but not sure if it's going to happen or not. Too much going on. When are you headed there again? Heck, let's get a bunch of us to get a trip there at the same time. That would be fun!
Click to expand...
I just got back from a week at Ko 'Olina and a week at WPORV... so not for a while. We do plan to go summer 2023, but there might be a chance I get there before then :)

Yes, hope to see you soon sometime down the road...
 
Emerson said:
Privately, BOD members are saying that the quorum was achieved but the no votes were overwhelming more than the yes votes!
Click to expand...
But they announced something different on the call that people here listened to?
 
You lucky dog!! Sounds like you spent some time in a little slice of Heaven! I'm not sure when we're going to get there. Sooner than later, I hope.

We'll all meet up somewhere I hope. Those were some great meetups at Ko'Olina. Might just have to meet somewhere on the mainland to make it easier on everyone.


sjsharkie said:
I just got back from a week at Ko 'Olina and a week at WPORV... so not for a while. We do plan to go summer 2023, but there might be a chance I get there before then :)

Yes, hope to see you soon sometime down the road...
Click to expand...
 
I can't speak to what Emerson is saying because I haven't talked to any member of the BOD. But, I think what Emerson is saying is that there were enough votes cast to make the quorum and of that quorum, the vote was overwhelmingly "No." Emerson, correct me if I'm wrong. I thought the quorum had to be 60% but maybe not. 52.8% of owners voted so?????

I listened to the whole "meeting" and there was never anything announced about what the breakdown of the votes were (in terms of "Yes" or "No"). They just gave the break down as to the number of units that voted and in turn, the number of owners that voted (some owners have multiple weeks). There was never any breakdown of "Yes" or "No" votes. It sounds as if someone on the BOD is giving that information out after the fact now.

dioxide45 said:
But they announced something different on the call that people here listened to?
Click to expand...
 
JanT said:
Kal,

I really don't think all hope is lost to leave MWC if that's what it comes down to. People just had to have more information that proved it necessary. They didn't have it this time around. I don't think MWC can move fast enough to gain full control - not that many people will be selling their weeks so MWC won't be able to ROFR. In addition, they have to know that even if the next contract is for 3 years, there is ALWAYS a way to break a contract. If they don't shape up and make some changes, owners can always take action. Yes, that takes money but I'm pretty sure we've got owners who are attorneys who would be more than happy to do pro bono. Bottom line is MWC doesn't want to lose SH and I think there will be some good faith negotiations between them and the BOD.

Again, I'm going to make the push for the "marginal" member to resign or be removed from the BOD. If it was just a matter of not agreeing with other BOD members, that would be one thing. But, the outright lying, use of privacy protected information, backdoor channeling to get "No" votes when they voted "Yes" - that is NOT ok. There are genuine concerns about their integrity. Time to take action on this and put a stop to it.
Click to expand...
I believe that this vote was timed because the contract with MWC was expiring. I suspect that the contract will now renew automatically and that any further effort to leave would have to be tied to the expiration of the new contract.
 
JanT said:
I can't speak to what Emerson is saying because I haven't talked to any member of the BOD. But, I think what Emerson is saying is that there were enough votes cast to make the quorum and of that quorum, the vote was overwhelmingly "No." Emerson, correct me if I'm wrong. I thought the quorum had to be 60% but maybe not. 52.8% of owners voted so?????

I listened to the whole "meeting" and there was never anything announced about what the breakdown of the votes were (in terms of "Yes" or "No"). They just gave the break down as to the number of units that voted and in turn, the number of owners that voted (some owners have multiple weeks). There was never any breakdown of "Yes" or "No" votes. It sounds as if someone on the BOD is giving that information out after the fact now.
Click to expand...
Bingo
 
Emerson said:
Bingo
Click to expand...
But if enough votes were cast to meet the quorum, why didn't they announce the results of the yes/no? What you are saying doesn't match up with what others are reporting here and your posts are rather vague...
 
--deleted--
 
Last edited:
Is your comment directed towards me???? I'm not trying to stir up anything. I simply meant that people are talking to board members who are telling them how the vote was split. I don't personally care if they reveal that. Had we had the option to speak up at the "meeting" I would have asked what the vote split was.

I have absolutely no doubt that *bleep* will continue to swirl amongst the BODs. Until they rid themselves of the troublemaker on that board, it will stay that way. working on my request for removal letter right now.

dioxide45 said:
It sounds more like people are just trying to stir up *bleep*...
Click to expand...
 
JanT said:
Is your comment directed towards me???? I'm not trying to stir up anything.
Click to expand...
No, not at all. Sorry if I implied that. My comment was directed at another poster without first hand knowledge and doesn't seem to be a HSH owner and probably wasn't on the call. If they only received 52.8% of ownership votes, how can someone make a claim later that they did get enough votes but it just didn't pass? I don't buy it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top