How many of the Wyndham Resorts are not managed by Wyndham and what impact does that have on owners?

[TheHolleys87]

I don't have anyone on ignore, not yet.

I can highly recommend using that function! Keeps my blood pressure under control.

 

[schreff]

What was your old user name and who was the employee?

Too many years ago for me to remember so let's forget about my statement if you think that I am not telling the truth. I didn't really think it was important and I left TUG at the time due to not having the ability to trust what was said and by whom. In any case, I have proposed a full disclosure policy that anyone who has either a direct or indirect relationship with a timeshare corporation like Wyndham must disclose such for the benefit of all.

I do not and never had any direct or indirect conflicts of interest with Wyndham or any timeshare developer now or in the past. I once owned stock in Wyndham when I was, as now, complaining about unsavory Wyndham policies.

Do you agree that a full disclosure policy not only for Wyndham but all timeshare developers should be a policy when sharing information with TUG folks. If not, why not? And please explain fully what harm would a full disclosure policy have? This question is not only for you paxsarah but for all who would like to discuss fairness in posters and posting. I do expect a full answer from you though.

 

[Eric B]

Too many years ago for me to remember so let's forget about my statement if you think that I am not telling the truth. I didn't really think it was important and I left TUG at the time due to not having the ability to trust what was said and by whom. In any case, I have proposed a full disclosure policy that anyone who has either a direct or indirect relationship with a timeshare corporation like Wyndham must disclose such for the benefit of all.

I do not and never had any direct or indirect conflicts of interest with Wyndham or any timeshare developer now or in the past. I once owned stock in Wyndham when I was, as now, complaining about unsavory Wyndham policies.

Do you agree that a full disclosure policy not only for Wyndham but all timeshare developers should be a policy when sharing information with TUG folks. If not, why not? And please explain fully what harm would a full disclosure policy have? This question is not only for you paxsarah but for all who would like to discuss fairness in posters and posting. I do expect a full answer from you though.

While I agree that a full disclosure policy might add some value, I’m not entirely sure how it would be practical or whether there could be unintended consequences. I’ve only been a TUG member for about 5 years or so, but don’t recall having been asked to provide my work history, references, lists of stocks owned, etc., in order to show my postings aren’t motivated by any sort of relationship with any resort. I’ve had to provide that sort of information for employment and had my history verified by employers on many occasions, though. I just don’t think TUG has the resources to do that, so any such policy would likely have to be on an honor system. (Lord knows that timeshare salespeople never lie about anything, so we could trust all the folks saying they were never a timeshare salesperson….)

That leads to my thought on the potential for unintended consequences — if there were a policy on disclosure people might actually believe and be more susceptible to misinformation in postings. Not a big deal for me as I’m pretty skeptical about things I read on the internet — no one actually knows whether I’m actually a dog with a laptop and an email address here, after all. We might just be better off judging the truth and value of postings based on context. I feel like my judgment is up to that task and have several posters that I’ve chosen to ignore because of what they post and occasionally report obvious spam postings, etc. YMMV.

 

[Rolltydr]

Too many years ago for me to remember so let's forget about my statement if you think that I am not telling the truth. I didn't really think it was important and I left TUG at the time due to not having the ability to trust what was said and by whom. In any case, I have proposed a full disclosure policy that anyone who has either a direct or indirect relationship with a timeshare corporation like Wyndham must disclose such for the benefit of all.

I do not and never had any direct or indirect conflicts of interest with Wyndham or any timeshare developer now or in the past. I once owned stock in Wyndham when I was, as now, complaining about unsavory Wyndham policies.

Do you agree that a full disclosure policy not only for Wyndham but all timeshare developers should be a policy when sharing information with TUG folks. If not, why not? And please explain fully what harm would a full disclosure policy have? This question is not only for you paxsarah but for all who would like to discuss fairness in posters and posting. I do expect a full answer from you though.

First of all, I am not now, nor have I ever been employed by or had a conflict of interest with Wyndham. Second, how in the world do you know if I am being truthful? Third, have you checked with @TUGBrian about this? I’m assuming he would have to play judge and jury. I don’t know about him, but I sure wouldn’t add that to my list of responsibilities.

And, lastly, as I have said before on a few other threads on this subject, just because someone disagrees with your opinion of Wyndham, that doesn’t make them a Wyndham employee or mouthpiece. Your opinion is yours alone and can be anything you want to believe. It’s an opinion, neither right nor wrong. Accusations, however, must have proof to sustain them, not opinions. You‘ve made very clear your opinion of Wyndham in your posts. You have offered little, if any, proof for your accusations.

 

[schreff]

While I agree that a full disclosure policy might add some value, I’m not entirely sure how it would be practical or whether there could be unintended consequences. I’ve only been a TUG member for about 5 years or so, but don’t recall having been asked to provide my work history, references, lists of stocks owned, etc., in order to show my postings aren’t motivated by any sort of relationship with any resort. I’ve had to provide that sort of information for employment and had my history verified by employers on many occasions, though. I just don’t think TUG has the resources to do that, so any such policy would likely have to be on an honor system. (Lord knows that timeshare salespeople never lie about anything, so we could trust all the folks saying they were never a timeshare salesperson….)

That leads to my thought on the potential for unintended consequences — if there were a policy on disclosure people might actually believe and be more susceptible to misinformation in postings. Not a big deal for me as I’m pretty skeptical about things I read on the internet — no one actually knows whether I’m actually a dog with a laptop and an email address here, after all. We might just be better off judging the truth and value of postings based on context. I feel like my judgment is up to that task and have several posters that I’ve chosen to ignore because of what they post and occasionally report obvious spam postings, etc. YMMV.

Good post and your thoughts are all valid. I guess I am a little naive in thinking that folks tell the truth in the world today. And that they would only misrepresent themselves if they had to disclose any conflict of interest. I do know that it is obvious to me that the same old posse that wants to string up any cowboy or cowgirl for negative truths about Wyndham is either blinded by Wyndham or has an ultimate motive. This ain't my first rodeo.

Your right many of us can see through the disguise of those who have bias and perhaps conflicts in their defensive and often times hateful words but there are a lot of good TUG folks out there who would support at least an honest attempt to distinguish between folks who have something to gain versus those who are seeking true and valid information about a future purchase. .

 

[troy12n]

And, lastly, as I have said before on a few other threads on this subject, just because someone disagrees with your opinion of Wyndham, that doesn’t make them a Wyndham employee or mouthpiece. Your opinion is yours alone and can be anything you want to believe. It’s an opinion, neither right nor wrong. Accusations, however, must have proof to sustain them, not opinions. You‘ve made very clear your opinion of Wyndham in your posts. You have offered little, if any, proof for your accusations.

I'm glad i'm not the only one seeing through "schreff"s web of speculation, conjecture, half truths, and outright omission on the subject. And their only retort is to come back and accuse some of us of being Wyndham employees. And "little if any proof" is being pretty generous.

There's a clear pattern of facts here, whether or not the OP chooses to acknowledge them or not is not our concern. They were in fact given proper notice by their HOA (who is responsible) and apparetly also by Wyndham. awren't owed anything. And "oopsie, I must have missed that email" isn't an excuse.

Again, to the OP... i'm sorry this thread isn't going the way you planned. Take your losses. It's really getting old at this point. Be grateful and enjoy your Platinum ownership you have.

If you have any ownership you want to get rid of at decent resorts, PM me... please no Villa Rica's or New Bern's tho.

 

[troy12n]

And for the record, i'm not, nor have ever been a Wyndham employee or associated with any of their companies. I'm an owner, just like the rest of you. I can't speak for anyone else here, but for me, it's true.

Maybe I should be outraged by the ridiculous accusation, but instead i'm too busy laughing at the absurdity of it. Anyone who has ever worked for a major corporation knows they have policies in place which prohibit employees from making comments on public forums and social media, or relasing statements, even if not on behalf of the company, without their prior written approval.

I'm also really busy laughing hysterically at this statement...

I guess I am a little naive in thinking that folks tell the truth in the world today.

Pot... meet kettle. Enough said.

 

[goaliedave]

Things change, that's life, read your contact. You aren't the first person to lose buying real estate or timeshares. Congrats though you did manage to rope a number of people into fighting with you so you could blow off steam.

 

[Sandi Bo]

Things change, that's life, read your contact. You aren't the first person to lose buying real estate or timeshares. Congrats though you did manage to rope a number of people into fighting with you so you could blow off steam.

But why did it anger anyone? I don't understand the issue, I don't have any of that stuff. But seemed like TUG would be a good place to post their issue and get some advice. Opinions and some good information. I just didn't understand how it went south the way it did.

 

[paxsarah]

Do you agree that a full disclosure policy not only for Wyndham but all timeshare developers should be a policy when sharing information with TUG folks. If not, why not? And please explain fully what harm would a full disclosure policy have? This question is not only for you paxsarah but for all who would like to discuss fairness in posters and posting. I do expect a full answer from you though.

I mainly think it's unnecessary. TUG is full of the savviest Wyndham owners you'll find anywhere (RIP Atozed). They are very good at correcting misinformation, or challenging others on assumptions they believe are incorrect. They are extremely helpful to newcomers, answering the same questions with patience when a new person finds us. Many of them are a pretty open book when it comes to their ownership - what VIP level they are, where they're traveling or where they've been, issues that they're having. When brand-new information is shared, they are pretty skeptical until independent confirmation can be found (for instance, when talk first surfaced of what eventually became the new 2020 VIP levels). If a Wyndham employee came in posing as an owner and started spouting skewed information, it would get noticed and commented on. If they were to come in and post correct information, great - more correct information being shared! (At least in my opinion.) Even the posters with whom I disagree (and my very short ignore list), I chalk up to us simply being very, very different people - not ulterior motives on either of our parts.

So regardless of whether we know someone has a connection to Wyndham or not, we'll correct any misinformation they post. So in my opinion, it will sort itself out. I personally don't get a sense that any of our active posters have a current or former employment relationship to Wyndham (other than the former salesperson who disclosed his status in his first post). So it seems to me the hassle of developing and maintaining some sort of disclosure is a solution in search of a problem, and more trouble than it's worth.

 

[goaliedave]

But why did it anger anyone? I don't understand the issue, I don't have any of that stuff. But seemed like TUG would be a good place to post their issue and get some advice. Opinions and some good information. I just didn't understand how it went south the way it did.

Agree! People often use social media to vent. Not sure why others engage them. It makes it difficult to find the useful bits.

 

[Jan M.]

By the way, I am getting PM's from a bunch of different people who are now getting letters, even if they only rented a few a year.

I always knew that Wyndham would go after the mega renters first, and then move on up the ladder to the small players, and finally it will be at the point where no one will be able to add a guest name.

I've had a ongoing debate dating back to the subsequent events of the Freeze of August 2016 with another Tugger who seems to have given up on TUG. This person's stance was always that it would be the guest confirmations. My stance was that they would take away the VIP benefits on resale points. Turns out we were both right.

Cindy, I'm sure you see me and some others as just laying down, rolling over and accepting everything Wyndham's doing. Yes, I do see this as a fight there's very, very little chance of winning. This is another time I might be wrong, completely right or partially right. If anyone has a crystal ball they're not sharing what it's telling them about all of this. Lol

I'm tired of the what's next. Many of us can see the handwriting on the wall that changes to guest confirmations are coming. It would be a kindness at this point if Wyndham would just do it and end the feeling of doom, waiting for the other shoe to drop, the axe to fall.....

What I don't like and will speak out about is why and how Wyndham's going about this. I've said in other posts that what started Wyndham taking action about renting is Glacier Canyon officially complaining about Yvonne Michelson having 40 reservations at GC over Thanksgiving 2020. Once they started looking into it they found out they had a much bigger problem than they were aware of.

Some of you may remember the discussions of a few years ago about silos in Wyndham management. As we've seen before Wyndham doesn't know, doesn't care, or both until something gets so bad it blows up in their face. Great way to run a company and our governing Trust.

 

[CO skier]

I just didn't understand how it went south the way it did.

There was a "shreff thread" in the KBV subforum where, apparently, everyone in the thread put everyone else in the thread on "ignore" and the thread majically ended.

 

[schreff]

The end

 

[schreff]

There was a "shreff thread" in the KBV subforum where, apparently, everyone in the thread put everyone else in the thread on "ignore" and the thread majically ended.

I thought the purpose of a TUG discussion group was to help each other with timeshare problems, disseminate information and help new folks decide on whether or not to purchase a timeshare. It was obvious to me several years ago that there are many good TUG folks who want to help by being kind and thoughtful in their comments. It was also obvious to me that there were others who were (and I'm being kind in saying it like this) not so helpful and not so kind. This last short visit proves I was right then and that things within the TUG discussion group have gotten worse instead of better.

Thus, this proves my theory that posting and starting discussions within a TUG discussion group is nothing more than a waste of time. The only benefit I see is reading other people's posts in an attempt to learn. I crossed to rubicon of insanity by repeating my previous error. I don't have a problem taking the heat in the kitchen but why waste my valuable time. Time is precious and wasting it by addressing verbal warfare is wrong.

And the name is Schreff not Shreff and " don't break a leg ".

 

[schreff]

The end

Good luck all and God be with you.

 

[rickandcindy23]

I've had a ongoing debate dating back to the subsequent events of the Freeze of August 2016 with another Tugger who seems to have given up on TUG. This person's stance was always that it would be the guest confirmations. My stance was that they would take away the VIP benefits on resale points. Turns out we were both right.

Cindy, I'm sure you see me and some others as just laying down, rolling over and accepting everything Wyndham's doing. Yes, I do see this as a fight there's very, very little chance of winning. This is another time I might be wrong, completely right or partially right. If anyone has a crystal ball they're not sharing what it's telling them about all of this. Lol

I'm tired of the what's next. Many of us can see the handwriting on the wall that changes to guest confirmations are coming. It would be a kindness at this point if Wyndham would just do it and end the feeling of doom, waiting for the other shoe to drop, the axe to fall.....

What I don't like and will speak out about is why and how Wyndham's going about this. I've said in other posts that what started Wyndham taking action about renting is Glacier Canyon officially complaining about Yvonne Michelson having 40 reservations at GC over Thanksgiving 2020. Once they started looking into it they found out they had a much bigger problem than they were aware of.

Some of you may remember the discussions of a few years ago about silos in Wyndham management. As we've seen before Wyndham doesn't know, doesn't care, or both until something gets so bad it blows up in their face. Great way to run a company and our governing Trust.

I don't feel that way. I am also giving up, laying down, rolling over, or whatever you want to call it. I am giving away contracts, which are HARD TO GIVE AWAY, by the way, and I am going to contact Wyndham about the rest. I only gave away one Fairfield Bay (Arkansas) and a few Kingsgate and maybe one Smoky Mountains. I need to get rid of so many contracts...

We own so much developer that we could do well with it, but we also own a bunch of Marriott/ Sheraton/ Westin and our own Hono Koa oceanfront units, so we are not really needing this much Wyndham, which is a shame. We just don't use Wyndham enough to use these points. I have some with really low MF's, like our Angel Fire, NM that is developer, and some others.

I will continue to advertise and see how it goes because Wyndham says it will be 4-6 months to get contracts out of our name with deedback. That is way too long. They are obviously dealing with a lot of those right now.

 

[HitchHiker71]

I just don't understand where your anger and rudeness comes from. I am embarassed to be a member of TUG and see someone talked to like this. People should feel comfortable to express their opinions and/or ask for advice without being attacked. I just don't understand treating people the way you do. TUG do we have code of conduct of some sort? Like be kind and respectful?

Yes, here's a link to the TUG forum rules for reference: https://tugbbs.com/forums/help/terms/

Excerpted screenshot with specific emphasis on the TUG Be Courteous rule:

If anyone feels that a particular post violates forum rules - please report it via the Report function - that's what it is there for. The moderators don't have the bandwidth to monitor all posts/threads proactively so don't count on any of the forum moderators to find post violations - that's why we ask that any/all posts that may violate forum rules be reported - it calls the post out and all moderators (myself included) have access to a forum Reports queue to monitor and take moderator action on reported posts when necessary. I'll also take this opportunity to recommend making use of the "Ignore" function for forum posters that rub you the wrong way for whatever reason.

 

[HitchHiker71]

Do you believe that there are active posters on the Wyndham forum who have an employment relationship (either current or past) with Wyndham?

There are TUG posters/members who work for Wyndham (and many other timeshare entities). We do not discriminate against anyone based upon their chosen profession. For my part, I suspect that TUG will never require any type of employment verification since that's simply not feasible nor practical for various reasons. TUG is a public forum by design with tens of thousands of members. When you ask whether someone works for a timeshare entity - anyone who does knows why you're asking this question - and will simply lie to join the forum. I know this for a fact, because I'm also an admin for the Supportive Wyndham Timeshare Owners FB group (among others), and we explicitly do ask this employment/affiliation question when people join this FB group - and we have repeatedly come to find out that Wyndham employees lie when answering this question. Eventually we find out that the person works for Wyndham after the fact - and then we ban them from that particular group - but they know full well to lie when answering that question if they want to join that FB group - because we wouldn't ask that question in the first place if we weren't going to decline Wyndham employees by design.

 

[HitchHiker71]

Good luck all and God be with you.

I would encourage you to leverage the Ignore function to filter out content that you don't want to expose yourself to, and to utilize the Report function if/when you feel that there are forum posts that violate the forum rules (per my previous post with regard to this topic). We here at TUG want to encourage people like you to share your thoughts and opinions openly, with the core understanding that there will always be those who disagree and may post their disagreement openly as well. That's the nature of all public forums. Public forums, IMHO, are largely representative of sociological patterns - so it's not at all surprising to me to see more disagreement on public forums like TUG given we're living in times when there is a lot of public disagreement on a broad variety of topics regardless of where we go - unless we go only to forums where the membership is tribal and IME forums like that are largely echo chambers that don't produce anything useful. Of course thats IMHO.

 

[schreff]

I have read the TUG rules and although I do not fully agree with all of them (see below), some are unenforceable. I am sure that Wyndham pays folks to promote their brand when they see a negative but truthful owner. They don't want that owner to hurt Wyndham sales. TUG does a lot of good but these Wyndies hiding in the shadows do not. They disrupt topics and attack viciously and without remorse those who have problems.

TUG RULE- If you are a broker or salesperson, or work in an allied field, we welcome your participation on the board. We value your industry perspective and valuable insights. We do not appreciate, however, attempts to use our bbs for direct commercial purposes. We do not, for instance, welcome your adding tag lines promoting your business, such as "Call me for more information." Use the board as a way to be helpful and build your reputation, not as a direct sales tool, please. Due to flagrant commercial violations by some abusers in the past, we have found it necessary to be very strict about this.

That being said, I believe the future will prove that those resorts not being managed by Wyndham will have an adverse impact on Wyndham owners who purchased Wyndham/Fairfield/Cendant at these resorts. Wyndham loses a great deal of money when they are not the manager of one of their older resorts. These resorts have chosen to get rid of Wyndham for a reason. Wyndham appears to dislike not only legacy resorts but owners who are too old to buy more Wyndham high priced points.

I have shared what happened in our case. Any Wyndham negative truth is like honey, it sure does attract many stinging Wyndie bees. Just watch how many stinging comments come when we TUG folks complain about unfair Wyndham policies. This is a leading indicator that the truth hurts.

Why use the ignore function when you can take the heat? If used, you will miss who is and who isn't posting for reasons other than to help other TUG folks. And if you let these Wyndies take over you will hurt more than help TUG folks who are seeking the truth about timeshares.

I would encourage you to leverage the Ignore function to filter out content that you don't want to expose yourself to, and to utilize the Report function if/when you feel that there are forum posts that violate the forum rules (per my previous post with regard to this topic). We here at TUG want to encourage people like you to share your thoughts and opinions openly, with the core understanding that there will always be those who disagree and may post their disagreement openly as well. That's the nature of all public forums. Public forums, IMHO, are largely representative of sociological patterns - so it's not at all surprising to me to see more disagreement on public forums like TUG given we're living in times when there is a lot of public disagreement on a broad variety of topics regardless of where we go - unless we go only to forums where the membership is tribal and IME forums like that are largely echo chambers that don't produce anything useful. Of course thats IMHO.

 

[paxsarah]

I am sure that Wyndham pays folks to promote their brand when they see a negative but truthful owner. They don't want that owner to hurt Wyndham sales. TUG does a lot of good but these Wyndies hiding in the shadows do not. They disrupt topics and attack viciously and without remorse those who have problems.

If you have seen this in your recent time on the forum, I would be very interested to learn who you think works for Wyndham out of the active posters.

 

[Sandi Bo]

If you have seen this in your recent time on the forum, I would be very interested to learn who you think works for Wyndham out of the active posters.

Live your life like you're on camera. Post on TUG like everyone's a Wyndham plant?

 

[Eric B]

Live your life like you're on camera. Post on TUG like everyone's a Wyndham plant?

I travel so much now that my plants never get watered anyway. The ones inside seem to wither up because of that, though there are a few that hang in there. Not sure how many of those are from Wyndham, but they've been around for a while and I mostly ignore them. That works here, too....

 

[paxsarah]

Live your life like you're on camera. Post on TUG like everyone's a Wyndham plant?

I would be surprised if we haven’t had lurkers/surveillance from Wyndham over the years. I don’t really have anything to hide from them, nor any ideas good enough for them to steal, so I don’t think too much about it. But if this poster thinks we have active posters from Wyndham, I wonder who they think they are.