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

[jp10558]

This is the difference between me and you; when I don’t know something, I say I don’t know. You presume to know and keep doubling down. I don’t see what good comes from that. I’m not in those rooms and I don’t know what those people know, so I won’t presume to know why they made the decisions they made. I know they had reasons. I have no idea if their reasons were good or bad. But, they made them and will have to live with them.

Except, you're clearly saying "because of legal reasons this is an orderly / good process". I'm saying the opposite with as much knowledge and speculation as you. If you were only saying "I don't know" - you wouldn't be arguing that we do know it's a "legal restriction" that so far no one has given any example, hypothetical or earlier resort closure that are analogous where they couldn't tell people about it till they (apparently) show up to try and check in in some cases in 2026. No, what we've seen is examples from other closing resorts that do inform owners and provide guidance, the exact opposite than what Wyndham is doing, and I don't buy the argument that there is a law against doing so that everyone but Wyndham is violating.

 

[Floridaman76]

Bottom line is that as 12/31/2025 the resorts will have no availability and everyone should cancel any reservations after that date.

AND that should be communicated... you know, so PEOPLE KNOW THIS IS COMING and their planned vacation is not destroyed at the last minute.

 

[jp10558]

From a legal standpoint, Wyndham could prevent Club bookings at any time. They are under no obligation to legally provide exchanges through point bookings. I would see the only legal reservations they may still have to allow to be made, until an owner vote is held, is home resort reservations made by owners who own at the resort.

Exactly! There's also no reason I have seen pointed to that Wyndham has to let anyone book anything specific held by CWA, as long as they can book something. I really struggle to see what in all the docs posted would make them do exchange or CWA bookings, as long as they don't block all bookings. If they had to "make something up" to appease this person insisting Wyndham allow what's basically phantom availability here to remain, they could claim the resort is in Maintenance till next year. They do that for buildings, pools, etc all the time.

Also, and I've mentioned this at least twice - there is literally NO WAY that Wyndham legally must end bookings or management at the end of this year. There is no conceivable legal reason that they couldn't have kept operating completely as normal until 13 months after an HOA vote to enter Chapter 11 or close, and therefore not have any possibility of a hanging booking.

 

[jp10558]

AND that should be communicated... you know, so PEOPLE KNOW THIS IS COMING and their planned vacation is not destroyed at the last minute.

Exactly. It seems like the Wyndham defenders here are saying it's both legally required and "orderly" that someone who shows up for a booking in 2026 just rolls up to a locked gate and empty resort, probably without even a paper sign saying "we're closed", just an abandoned property - like we're crazy to think that is unacceptable. Or to think that we'd love someone to explain the law that requires THAT.

 

[HitchHiker71]

I disagree, this seems pretty disorderly, or else all the people on this forum wouldn't be posting wondering what the heck is going on. An orderly process would IMO be to start all the votes 1-2 years before the drop dead date so no one would be wondering "should I book for the XX time in the future" or "What is going to happen when I booked and was confirmed months after the "secret" drop dead date?". So that once the decisions are made, all existing reservations can be honored and no ones after the furthest in the future it could be are accepted.

The lack of communication to the ownership base doesn’t necessarily mean it’s disorderly, it simply means we are collectivity uniformed as to the specifics of the legal and procedural processes in play. Wyndham is under no obligation to disclose their impacted resort lists or disposition plans. They have explicitly indicated this will be handled by the HOAs at the impacted resorts.

A communication plan is typically a part of an overall plan - which again - has been to a limited extent communicated via the published missive in July. Is that sufficient? Not in my view, I would have sent an email blast out to the ownership base pointing back to that missive at the very least. Would that have put pressure and added costs onto the Wyndham customer service departments? Absolutely. Quite obviously, Wyndham has decided on some level that the cost of doing so is greater than the cost of not doing so. Whether we all agree with that decision is up for debate, but nothing we say or do is likely going to change the outcome.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[HitchHiker71]

From a legal standpoint, Wyndham could prevent Club bookings at any time. They are under no obligation to legally provide exchanges through point bookings. I would see the only legal reservations they may still have to allow to be made, until an owner vote is held, is home resort reservations made by owners who own at the resort.

Please point me toward the governing trust documentation that provides for this legal standpoint you’re referring to. Be specific.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[HitchHiker71]

Except, you're clearly saying "because of legal reasons this is an orderly / good process". I'm saying the opposite with as much knowledge and speculation as you. If you were only saying "I don't know" - you wouldn't be arguing that we do know it's a "legal restriction" that so far no one has given any example, hypothetical or earlier resort closure that are analogous where they couldn't tell people about it till they (apparently) show up to try and check in in some cases in 2026. No, what we've seen is examples from other closing resorts that do inform owners and provide guidance, the exact opposite than what Wyndham is doing, and I don't buy the argument that there is a law against doing so that everyone but Wyndham is violating.

Unless those other resorts used a bankruptcy process to accelerate closure, and potientially override the member voting process, then you are comparing apples and oranges. Using a traditional resort closure process is not in scope here. To the best of my understanding, this entire process is nascent in nature and not without some level of unprecedence. The legal system works primarily based on precedence, hence the uncertainty factors involved that likely have the lawyers recommending Wyndham stay silent until this process has played out beyond certain established thresholds. It is, after all, primarily a legal matter at the end of the day.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[HitchHiker71]

AND that should be communicated... you know, so PEOPLE KNOW THIS IS COMING and their planned vacation is not destroyed at the last minute.

On that much we are in violent agreement.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Floridaman76]

On that much we are in violent agreement.

It just seems WYN is trying to have it both ways, and hide behind legalese and be immune from the impending backlash from owners.

And it's just not happening. There's going to be HUGE financial impacts to travellers which cannot be ignored. Wouldn't be surprised if lawsuits come up over it.

Obviously the people who know, can and at least SHOULD be making alternate plans. But the people who don't, who I think we all would agree is the majority of the affected parties, are going to be PISSED. This isn't something they will just easily forget.

That's why I brought up probably a month ago, when this all goes down, they need to do everything in their powers to try to make it right. Bonus points, free vacation, SOMETHING. But people potentially have non-refundable airline tickets or tickets where their may be a substantial change fees PLUS the fact that tickets booking in October/November/December will cost more and be scarce.

It's going to be a mess...

 

[HitchHiker71]

Also, and I've mentioned this at least twice - there is literally NO WAY that Wyndham legally must end bookings or management at the end of this year. There is no conceivable legal reason that they couldn't have kept operating completely as normal until 13 months after an HOA vote to enter Chapter 11 or close, and therefore not have any possibility of a hanging booking.

I don’t think anyone is suggesting anywhere that Wyndham is legally obligated to end bookings or management by year end. This is obviously a goal that Wyndham has decided upon primarily to simplify the management of these resorts given the calendar year end date, which avoids the headaches of having to deal with 2026 resort operations, points contract provisions, reservations, etc., to say nothing of the fiscal year end expense related items. I’d surmise this date isn’t written in stone for every resort given the bankruptcy approaches in play, but that is the intended outcome at least for now. As @bnoble has repeatedly pointed out, Wyndham can essentially remove resorts from Club Wyndham at their discretion. Given they have already informed the employees supporting these resorts that their employment will end on 12/31/2025, I’d assign high confidence this date isn’t going to change for any of the impacted resorts unless the legal proceedings require it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[HitchHiker71]

Exactly. It seems like the Wyndham defenders here are saying it's both legally required and "orderly" that someone who shows up for a booking in 2026 just rolls up to a locked gate and empty resort, probably without even a paper sign saying "we're closed", just an abandoned property - like we're crazy to think that is unacceptable. Or to think that we'd love someone to explain the law that requires THAT.

The service impact to the customer base is entirely out of scope from a legal standpoint. The bankruptcy judges could care less. As someone else already indicated, they care about their court dockets, schedules, and rulings, and that’s pretty much it.

Wyndham and the HOAs will be left to deal with the uncertain aftermath of these bankruptcy proceedings from a customer service standpoint, not the courts. Your attempt to conflate legal processes with corporate customer service is amusing though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Floridaman76]

Re: the 12/31 date probably has a HUGE tax savings if they can pull it off too. That's probably the driver behind it. Also CY26 contracts / weeks could be nullified if the timeshare operations cease by that date.

 

[paxsarah]

I’m also one of only a select few on this entire thread who is actually working directly with Wyndham to understand both sides explicitly

That’s what happens when you’re the gatekeeper of corporate contacts other owners don’t have access to. It’s lonely at the top.

 

[HitchHiker71]

That’s what happens when you’re the gatekeeper of corporate contacts other owners don’t have access to. It’s lonely at the top.

If I can do it anyone can really, they simply choose not to, or just plain don’t have the interest. I’m not special by any means, despite what my wife would say about me.

Still, given the prodigious amount of posts that many on this forum have accumulated over many years, if they put half as much effort into building relationships with Wyndham as opposed to complaining about Wyndham, they’d likely have superseded whatever I’ve been able to do given my professional commitments and constraints.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[HitchHiker71]

Re: the 12/31 date probably has a HUGE tax savings if they can pull it off too. That's probably the driver behind it. Also CY26 contracts / weeks could be nullified if the timeshare operations cease by that date.

That’s why I said there are fiscal motivators in addition to the procedural motivators all associated to the calendar year end goal.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[geist1223]

So starting January 1, 2026 there will be approximately the same number of members chasing fewer resorts and units. Wih a large percentage of the Membership caught unaware and angry.

 

[Floridaman76]

That’s what happens when you’re the gatekeeper of corporate contacts other owners don’t have access to. It’s lonely at the top.

Maybe RENTER can be his backup!

He can bring a, um, different perspective to the table. The Quorum of 130 or whatever can have their grievances heard.

 

[Floridaman76]

So starting January 1, 2026 there will be approximately the same number of members chasing fewer resorts and units. Wih a large percentage of the Membership caught unaware and angry.

Which I said on July 14th:

I've been saying this all along, ripple effects are far reaching:
1. Fewer resorts for roughly the same number of owners to compete for
2. Resorts with lower points values being removed, vacations at the remaining resort options will cost more vs what was there before
3. Resorts in specific area where there are no other (Wyndham) alternatives nearby mean staying in a hotel, or dealing with RCI or AirBNB to do the same vacation
4. More people in CWA means more people will now have 13 month ARP, they will be fighting for deeded owners at 13 months at resorts which have both CWA and CWS inventory
5. Fewer resorts means booking inside the discount or upgrade windows will be much harder, if not impossible
6. I believe this sets a bad precedent and template on how they can remove other resorts from the system arbitrarily, cheapening our ownership

That's just a handful of the issues and I do not see how this can be spun as any positive thing for owners.

Basically the ONLY people these changes help are:
- Wyndham
- People who own at one of these resorts who were looking to get out anyway

In most cases, people being force transitioned from their deeded property to CWA are getting the shaft from a MF perspective. In a few cases, they are lower, but I think that's the minority

 

[paxsarah]

If I can do it anyone can really, they simply choose not to, or just plain don’t have the interest.

I think you’re underestimating the hurdles to getting a toe in the door in the first place for someone whose only contact at Wyndham is the phone number on the cover of the directory. It’s tough to build relationships when the only corporate staff you know are a rotating cast of first names in a call center. You don’t have to aw shucks your access - own it.

 

[HitchHiker71]

So starting January 1, 2026 there will be approximately the same number of members chasing fewer resorts and units. Wih a large percentage of the Membership caught unaware and angry.

Probably not the same number of members, as some percentage of impacted owners will exit Wyndham during these actions as has been evidenced on this thread. What is that percentage? No idea. Probably low - 10-20% range best guess. Then there’s the fact that a good proportion of these resorts supposedly had low owner occupancy, which means the actual members weren’t staying at these resorts for the most part. That’s another way of saying these members were already chasing “fewer” or more popular resorts anyways, and that most of these older resorts likely had a higher rental occupancy rate.

At a macro layer however, net net, we will be left with fewer resorts for the membership base. Some have theorized that Wyndham has another timeshare acquisition waiting in the wings with overlap to the impacted resort locations - or a subset thereof. I tend to doubt that theory, but anything is possible I suppose.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[comicbookman]

At a macro layer however, net net, we will be left with fewer resorts for the membership base. Some have theorized that Wyndham has another timeshare acquisition waiting in the wings with overlap to the impacted resort locations - or a subset thereof. I tend to doubt that theory, but anything is possible I suppose.

It would mitigate the PR fallout if true. I do agree that it is unlikely though.

 

[northovr]

I have 3 reservation at Shawnee for 2026 and they still won't tell me if they will be honored. Even worse one is MLK weekend in January. I understand they may not know everything because the HOA's have to vote but this entire situation should have been addressed in the Spring not late Fall.

I doubt they will be honored

Daniel

 

[HitchHiker71]

It would mitigate the PR fallout if true. I do agree that it is unlikely though.

For a moment, let's assume it's true and play this out a bit. It may indeed help from a PR standpoint. But, realistically, day one, nothing changes, since the newly acquired timeshare system will remain intact as a separate entity and Wyndham must adhere to that timeshare's bylaws and rules, much like the Shell Vacation Club (SVC) acquisition. Over time, Wyndham will make every attempt to convert ownerships from that timeshare system into Wyndham owners, just as they did with SVC. That process takes a good amount of time though, and has limited success, given even today, availability for Wyndham owners at any of the SVC resorts is hit or miss IME - since it's likely only a minority of the SVC ownership base has actually bought into Wyndham and had their SVC inventory exchanged and/or made available via CWA or one of the other trust based Wyndham ownerships. Again, based upon the limits of the acquired timeshare bylaws and governing documents, perhaps Club Pass could be offered between the newly acquired timeshare system and Club Wyndham. Overall though, even if we assume this does play out, it's not a solution that immediately replaces the lost inventory from the pending resort exits. It's a partial solution at best.

 

[HitchHiker71]

I have 3 reservation at Shawnee for 2026 and they still won't tell me if they will be honored. Even worse one is MLK weekend in January. I understand they may not know everything because the HOA's have to vote but this entire situation should have been addressed in the Spring not late Fall.

According to the Wyndham missive, it will not be honored, as only reservations up through the end of 2025 will be honored. I would not count on these reservations being honored, make alternate arrangements. There's a 95% chance that regardless of the resort disposition specifics and timelines, Wyndham is going to remove the impacted resorts from Club Wyndham effective 12/31/2025. Be prepared to live with disappointment if you're hoping this is all going to somehow work out to your advantage.

 

[comicbookman]

For a moment, let's assume it's true and play this out a bit. It may indeed help from a PR standpoint. But, realistically, day one, nothing changes, since the newly acquired timeshare system will remain intact as a separate entity and Wyndham must adhere to that timeshare's bylaws and rules, much like the Shell Vacation Club (SVC) acquisition. Over time, Wyndham will make every attempt to convert ownerships from that timeshare system into Wyndham owners, just as they did with SVC. That process takes a good amount of time though, and has limited success, given even today, availability for Wyndham owners at any of the SVC resorts is hit or miss IME - since it's likely only a minority of the SVC ownership base has actually bought into Wyndham and had their SVC inventory exchanged and/or made available via CWA or one of the other trust based Wyndham ownerships. Again, based upon the limits of the acquired timeshare bylaws and governing documents, perhaps Club Pass could be offered between the newly acquired timeshare system and Club Wyndham. Overall though, even if we assume this does play out, it's not a solution that immediately replaces the lost inventory from the pending resort exits. It's a partial solution at best.

I agree with your assessment. I was thinking more as a mitigation through distraction.