Wyndham is closing a handful of legacy resorts - dedicated chart/tracker located in the first post for this unfolding set of events

[HitchHiker71]

I have an internal high trust source at Wyndham - or what I will confirm as unofficial backchannel guidance - meaning we still don't have any official statements from Wyndham corporate - that there are no CA resorts being impacted - so I am removing these as yet to be named two CA resorts from the list now.

 

[CO skier]

The reason that the math isn't as bad for owners as they initially perceive is that as Wyndham gives away CWA contracts to the owners from these resorts, it will be doing fewer rentals of its own. But the optics of having to explain that's why the math works out are also bad, because the average owner generally hates the fact that Wyndham rents (and I'm sure it will still be renting after all of this, just less).

Why would "renting" even enter the discussion?

The official announcement could read, "... owners with accounts in good standing will have the option to swap their legacy inventory into Club Wyndham Access at no cost to the owner." A deeded week at what is an underutilized resort today (so the points of that deeded week are already "competing" elsewhere) are traded for the same number of CWA points.

The availability "optics" are no different than when a CWA contract is purchased.

 

[Floridaman76]

The optics are bad in terms of closing X number of resorts with no replacements, while potentially keeping the same number of individual owners in the system with the same number of points owned by individual owners. (Obviously, some will take this opportunity to exit partially or entirely and not take CWA as a replacement.) I've seen this point made by a number of owners in the FB threads, along the lines of "it's already hard to book what we want and now we'll be competing for fewer resorts," not to mention the ones whose favorites are among the potential cuts, and especially the northeasterners whose drivable options are really decreasing.

Exactly this, and you can't see that, you aren't paying attention.

Think, Bentley Brook's main competition for the Wyndham customer was Smuggs. Smuggs is already hard to get in-season. Add a bunch of people who were former BB owners and want something similar, this is their only choice. They will be fighting with the deeded Smuggs owners and the existing CWA owners to get what's there.

 

[dioxide45]

Which is basically what I suggested, but I also think the optics are amusing.

But I see several posts here suggesting that it will be the same amount of owners vying for less inventory. That isn't necessarily true as the number of owners is still going down, it is just the proportion of who owns what is out there that changes.

It was also apparently noted that the resorts being selected for this are properties that have lower owner occupancy anyway. I take owner occupancy to mean occupancy from within the Club Wyndham point system. So if there weren't a lot of Club Wyndham owners staying at these resorts anyway and most of it was just getting rented out or dumped into RCI, then the impact should be negligible.

 

[Floridaman76]

The availability "optics" are no different than when a CWA contract is purchased.

Correct me if i'm wrong, but Wyndham can't sell more CWS deeds than they have theoretical max rooms for in a calendar year.

I have to assume there's some sort of theoretical max number of "Access Points" available in the system, as a whole and they cannot exceed that, right?

I think considering how many foreclosures and ownerships turned in via Ovations/CE in the past few years, that's what they are using to try to make these owners whole. One would hope they are not fabricating points out of thin air, like our government does with the debt ceiling.

 

[CO skier]

The optics are bad in terms of closing X number of resorts with no replacements, while potentially keeping the same number of individual owners in the system with the same number of points owned by individual owners.

The anti-Wyndham Negative Nellies in the WorldMark system promote the opposite myth -- that new resorts somehow "devalue" their ownership. There was even a class action lawsuit by some idiot WorldMark owners that forced the removal of 400 "underutilized" units from the WorldMark system. Those units were transferred into Club Wyndham.

I guess those owners in WorldMark would view the upcoming resort removals from Club Wyndham as "revaluing" or maybe "upvaluing" a Club Wyndham ownership.

 

[CO skier]

Correct me if i'm wrong, but Wyndham can't sell more CWS deeds than they have theoretical max rooms for in a calendar year.

I have to assume there's some sort of theoretical max number of "Access Points" available in the system, as a whole and they cannot exceed that, right?

I think considering how many foreclosures and ownerships turned in via Ovations/CE in the past few years, that's what they are using to try to make these owners whole. One would hope they are not fabricating points out of thin air, like our government does with the debt ceiling.

Every Club Wyndham Access point is backed by an underlying deed at a resort -- just like converted fixed weeks or UDI weeks.

 

[CO skier]

Exactly this, and you can't see that, you aren't paying attention.

Think, Bentley Brook's main competition for the Wyndham customer was Smuggs. Smuggs is already hard to get in-season. Add a bunch of people who were former BB owners and want something similar, this is their only choice. They will be fighting with the deeded Smuggs owners and the existing CWA owners to get what's there.

Did I miss the official announcement that Bentley Brook is being converted to a condo project? Or will all the BB owners retain their deeded ownership, just under "new management"?

 

[HitchHiker71]

I received unofficial reliable backchannel guidance on the two RI resorts - OP updated - screenshot below for ease of reference:

 

[dioxide45]

Did I miss the official announcement that Bentley Brook is being converted to a condo project? Or will all the BB owners retain their deeded ownership, just under "new management"?

Nothing is official except the quasi official FG. So no one can answer your question. I suspect the poster was going off information based in the rumored resorts from the first post.

 

[Floridaman76]

Did I miss the official announcement that Bentley Brook is being converted to a condo project? Or will all the BB owners retain their deeded ownership, just under "new management"?

Doesn't matter what's happening to it.

If Wyndham weeks owners can't use it with what they bought or if Wyndham points owners can't use it with their points, for all intents an purposes, it's leaving the system and unavailable to owners.

Doesn't matter if another timeshare system ends up with it, even if it ends up in RCI, that's an exchange fee and probably resort fee owners right now do not have to spend, so it's a net negative to CW owners or Wyndham weeks owners of that resort.

 

[Jan M.]

Here's a few interesting things to consider.

How many of the potentially impacted owners only own at a resort or association potentially being dropped?

How many owners will accept the offer of CWA points or just say I'm done? Especially if that's all they own. If the CWA offer is actually made to all owners all the potential resorts.

How many owners will take the opportunity to exit the system altogether if that's all they own? 100, 200, more, less?

Going by the list of just the most likely resorts and associations, how many units are we talking? 1000, 2000, more, less?

I'm trying to wrap my head around how to look at the numbers. Say we lose 2000 units but the occupancy rate only came to 40-50% instead of whatever the goal is. Now say we lose 200 owners. So we only have 200 fewer owners competing for 800-1000 units at the remaining resorts? Is this significant, somewhat significant, or not really when we talk about the competition for stays?

 

[paxsarah]

But I see several posts here suggesting that it will be the same amount of owners vying for less inventory. That isn't necessarily true as the number of owners is still going down, it is just the proportion of who owns what is out there that changes.

It's potentially the same number of individual owners vying for less inventory. Most average owners don't really think about the fact that Wyndham itself is the biggest owner out there. And will be still after transferring a lot of CWA to owners formerly deeded at these resorts - just a smaller proportion than before.

 

[CO skier]

Doesn't matter what's happening to it.

If Wyndham weeks owners can't use it with what they bought or if Wyndham points owners can't use it with their points, for all intents an purposes, it's leaving the system and unavailable to owners.

It absolutely matters whether it is converted to condos and CWA points offered in trade for deeds from owners who want to continue with Club Wyndham or if it just leaves the CW system and no points are traded for deeds.

So, without an official announcement, why is Bentley Brook even a part of this?

 

[Richelle]

NO! While this information does not (likely) fall under the SEC Fair Disclosure regulations, the mistake here is that Wyndham did not handle the disclosure in a semi-SEC regulation manner where "everyone" knows "everything" at (about) the same time.

Sure, respect the feelings of the affected employees by simultaneously informing all of them of the "resort closings" (maybe a few hours, at most, ahead of the entire Club Wyndham ownership and the rest of the world).

"telling the HOA to hold off on announcing it to the residents in Fairfield Glade" (or suggesting/prohibiting ANY disclosure) or swearing the affected employees to secrecy beyond a few hours until an official announcement is just plain WRONG!

Ok


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[HitchHiker71]

It absolutely matters whether it is converted to condos and CWA points offered in trade for deeds from owners who want to continue with Club Wyndham or if it just leaves the CW system and no points are traded for deeds.

So, without an official announcement, why is Bentley Brook even a part of this?

It is listed as PARTIAL - meaning we have eyewitness reports from owners that were onsite when the employees were informed, in addition to backchannel reliable sources that have confirmed it is on the list. So it's basically known - but we don't have official public confirmation from either a reputable news source, or Wyndham directly.

 

[Roger830]

Edit: similar to above

 

[CO skier]

I'm trying to wrap my head around how to look at the numbers. Say we lose 2000 units but the occupancy rate only came to 40-50% instead of whatever the goal is. Now say we lose 200 owners. So we only have 200 fewer owners competing for 800-1000 units at the remaining resorts? Is this significant, somewhat significant, or not really when we talk about the competition for stays?

Without the actual, real life numbers, any numbers may be used to "prove" it is significant or insignificant.

 

[Floridaman76]

It absolutely matters whether it is converted to condos and CWA points offered in trade for deeds from owners who want to continue with Club Wyndham or if it just leaves the CW system and no points are traded for deeds.

Why do you think that matters?

If an existing owner can't book it from "within the club" or via the week they own, it's a loss to the individual, or "the club"... this isn't rocket science.

Don't conflate the idea that if, for existence, if BB goes to Diamond or Bluegreen (both now part of the Hilton umbrella) and owners could book it using RCI, that this would be a net neutral for existing Club Wyndham owners.

It's not. This is also not considering VIP owners privileges they would lose in such an exchange. No discounts, no suite upgrades, etc

This is a negative, stop being obtuse about this, you aren't even an owner, i'm not sure why you are so vested in this conversation.

 

[HitchHiker71]

Bentley Brook is where this all started.

On facebook a member staying at BB posted that a friend of his who works there was at a meeting the middle of last week where they were told that it would be closed at the end of December.

Correct, in addition to owners who were onsite at BB and confirmed with the BB front desk that their site was impacted. This is also why PP is on the list.

 

[CO skier]

It is listed as PARTIAL - meaning we have eyewitness reports from owners that were onsite when the employees were informed, in addition to backchannel reliable sources that have confirmed it is on the list. So it's basically known - but we don't have official public confirmation from either a reputable news source, or Wyndham directly.

My question is, "Is its ultimate disposition known?" It is a good bet Fairfield Glade is headed for closure of some kind where owners may be offered a CWA swap deal.

 

[CO skier]

Why do you think that matters?

Because people are running around with their hair on fire about the CWA swap. If BB owners retain their deeds and are not offered the CWA swap, then no more "competition" in Club Wyndham from those owners.

 

[CO skier]

This is a negative, stop being obtuse about this, you aren't even an owner, i'm not sure why you are so vested in this conversation.

Just trying to pour some water on all the hair fires.

 

[HitchHiker71]

My question is, "Is its ultimate disposition known?" It is a good bet Fairfield Glade is headed for closure of some kind where owners may be offered a CWA swap deal.

At this point we don't have specifics on disposition. Is this something we should add as a column to the chart? I was just going to put this in the Notes section - as to whether it would only be impacting a subset of HOAs for example, but Wyndham isn't exiting the entire resort.

 

[CO skier]

At this point we don't have specifics on disposition. Is this something we should add as a column to the chart?

Seems important enough for a column

Total closure
Total Condo conversion
System removal - owners retain deeds
Affects only part of Wyndham development