Interesting. If I respond to his posts, I’m arguing just to argue. If he responds to my posts, he’s just giving his opinion. Hmm.
But it seems reasonable to criticize or at least point out that from what we just heard in the last couple days on this thread that Wyndham knew they were bleeding at this resort 10 years ago. This argument that they absolutely couldn't have a "cost of doing business" of bleeding one more year implies to me - why didn't they have to do it in January? Many Wyndham fees are billed monthly after all. No, they could choose the exit date, and they basically mismanaged this so bad that they let it get to this point and cannot even go for a "soft landing". My criticism is that the tight timeline is Wyndham's fault. It's like if I blamed Microsoft for the cost of ESU or the forced hardware upgrades to get to Windows 11, and blamed vendors for dropping support for expensive hardware, and blamed the world's "rules" for why I didn't manage to plan to get the upgrades done before this month's deadline. Wouldn't you say "You knew this was going to happen for years and just didn't get your act together?". Or at least give me some measure of responsibility? So why not Wyndham here?
I know you weren’t asking me but, just for the record, I was a communications specialist in a Fortune 100 company.
No, we didn't learn that Wyndham knew they were bleeding at some of these resorts 10 years ago. The resorts themselves were bleeding. Wyndham stepped in to stem the bleeding believing they could also profit from the effort. The fact that it took 10 years before Wyndham is opting out suggests that at first, they did profit from the effort. Unlike your upgrade analogy, Wyndham does not have free will like you do. It must answer to shareholders, the SEC and state , local and federal laws that control what it can and cannot do as far as communication. So what more could they do than higher a very well-respected law firm to advise them?
That beats my experience, although I don't generally disagree with you.
I have stayed at Crestview before COVID. Very nice units. However, the rest of Shawnee is a dump. Units are in bad need of refurbishment. Once again - all before COVID. 2016 - 2019, we spent president's day weekend at Shawnee.
So how exactly did all the resorts that closed without declaring bankruptcy do it? Broke the law? We're all mass hallucinating the non Wyndham way it's been documented as happening in the past? Wyndham somehow was puppet controlled and must use this process on this timeline and no other, and there's laws that said they have to? That others ignored?
No, your argument is that laws that cause results you do not lie clearly don't exist because you say so. Bankruptcy adds complications, even before filing, because the know the intend to file. It's called covering your bases. So actions taken prior to filing need to be carefully considered. I fail to see what retail stores have to do with this, unless you are commenting on the sorry state of our economy. Announcing your plans beforehand could be considered as devaluing the asset before filing by a creditor. There, you have an example.
Well, I don't think it will, but I do think it perhaps could. What I mean is if another system fundamentally changed something - offer the weeks at low cost to get other people to pay MFs again. Make a capital investment to make the resort more of a destination in itself. etc. Capital's trading places legacy can provide more value for a week in RCI due to their Tiered system and significantly discounted exchange fee.
Have you received anything from the association regarding a special meeting and vote?
It's what was in this thread. It's not like Wyndham has communicated to any interested observers, after all, that's my whole complaint. There were huge discussions IN THIS THREAD about how it didn't make sense to talk about owner occupancy, especially with regard to Bently Brook. You can go back and look.
There was a post yesterday in which @HitchHiker pointed out how much Wyndham has been paying in MFs to try and keep the resorts open. Is that not accepting responsibility? Did they do that for too long? Who knows? They had a cost at which point they could no longer continue with the resort. They reached that point and are now executing the exit plan. That is taking responsibility.
Interesting. If I respond to his posts, I’m arguing just to argue. If he responds to my posts, he’s just giving his opinion. Hmm.
Hey, a typo isn't intentional. Unless you're now claiming Wyndham is not doing any of this closure intentionallyI’m sorry, but I had to laugh at the typo!
Do you have reading comprehension? I'm "startled" that you and others seem to have no empathy for owners being kept in the dark, and apparently feel like those people not on TUG (a niche forum on the internet) deserve to be blindsided.
As you know, I am concerned as a VIP Platinum on supply knowing that the demand will be great when the closure dam breaks. Wyndham has the statistics on exactly how many units are going to be closed. Please ask them the number of total weeks and exactly how they anticipate the fulfilling their demand projection wise. Also, are they planning on acquiring any new resorts to fill in the hole in the northeast resulting from the loss of Bentley Brook. Shawnee, Skyline Towers, and RI resort, etc. Also, are there any future plans to get rid of more legacy resorts in the future.
I know owner occupancy has been tossed about in this thread, but I don't recall any of the definitions being owners in good standing. Also, those discussions ignored the original point that not all reasons applied to all the resorts. Kind of what you have been doing.
It’s not a contest,
No, but It does go to the point of my original question.It’s not a contest,
I've posted examples many times of companies announcing things in advance. I imagine you've read them. I don't need a law degree to notice "going out of business" sale signs, or "store closing" signs, or too many instances of "vaporware" announcements from various tech companies etc.. And look - law.cornell.edu - you could link to an example law, or a news story that gives some context like dioxide did for condos, but "Just trust Wyndham bro" cause you're not a lawyer doesn't move my needle much, especially as we have another lawyer in this thread disagreeing with you.
OK, they knew there was a risk. Is your argument Wyndham didn't know before June that they needed to close these resorts? If they even knew 2 years ago they were going to do this, they could have done the same timeline, actually notified people a year in advance and still closed at the end of 2025 in my opinion. If they couldn't I think that's a lack of efficiency, and I would still blame bad management.
Confirmed on today's call that RVI/RVII are one HOA, and RVIII is a second HOA. Table adjusted in the OP accordingly.
No, my argument is that Wyndham did not have to use bankruptcy. They could have just held the vote to dissolve the TS. Also, Wyndham isn't declaring bankruptcy, the HOA is. Half of your argument is Wyndham does not know that the HOA is filing bankruptcy till the HOA votes. Neither does the HOA. Logically you cannot intend to do something if you don't know you're going to do it. And I suppose announcing any plans could be construed however one likes, it's not special here.
As usual you are making things up. What we are doing is trying to correct disinformation. Wyndham has done many, many things which can and should be criticized. Some of those things are even arguably illegal. There is id no need to make up new nefarious acts to attribute to Wyndham. That just ruins credibility when someone here points out an actual bad act of Wyndham's. Your statement about people being negatively impacted is not something either of us have really disagreed with, yet you use it to attempt to discredit both of us. It just shows your lack of integrity with regard to this discussion. It comes down to you don't like the way things are playing out (I don't either) so you declare that there must be evil afoot. You make these claims without any support other than you "know " that must be the case. When challenged you revert to using irrelevant examples (store going out of business) and misrepresenting what I have been saying. You also provide no basis for why you would have more knowledge of the subject than anyone else. Clearly you don't like to have your "absolute" declarations challenged. Sorry, I don't take your word for anything, and I am quite happy to tell others why.