[ALL DEBATE CONTENT REMOVED FROM ORIGINAL THREAD PLACED HERE] All debate topics for the ongoing Wyndham resort closure actions...

[comicbookman]

Yup, it was a mistake to click that. My question was general in nature. Given the person has actually spoke to a human at Wyndham and had a chance to talk to them, I was wondering if they perhaps had more information about it. It was you and others that got into the petty bickering about a simple question. You are nitpicking. The same as you do with parsing my words as to if I am accusing of Wyndham being evil.

Why do you turn everything into an argument? it is like you are trying to actively push people away from asking questions and not even bother posting here. So much for a "community" or owners. This is my last post on the subject because this really should be over in the debate thread. I notice that unless I move an ongoing conversation there no one else does even though they know it should be there.

I will also instill more self control next time to not click that link and reply to people who don't seem to ne interested in constructive conversation.

Maybe it's because you try to claim wide meanings when it suites you and narrow meanings when wide don't. You have shown that you will start an argument with anybody and then if you don't seem to be "winning" you try to play word games, sometimes even changing sides mid-argument. There seems to be no such thing as a discussion with you. You claim anyone who disagrees is starting an argument, rather than you doing so. You also seem to be very paranoid. Please don't click on any of my posts, I am getting tired of your rants.

 

[CO skier]

So you believe the majority of owners

That is a giant leap from

Speaking for myself,

Just take a look at the "lack of member/owner occupancy" numbers at the affected resorts. The super-vast majority of Club Wyndham member/owners do not stay at these resorts, hence they "likely" do not care one way or the other about these has-been resorts.

 

[CO skier]

It's money in the near future v. money in the distant future.

How would that affect an owner's choice to accept or decline the swap, now, which is the only time it will be offered?

 

[Floridaman76]

That is a giant leap from


Just take a look at the "lack of member/owner occupancy" numbers at the affected resorts. The super-vast majority of Club Wyndham member/owners do not stay at these resorts, hence they "likely" do not care one way or the other about these has-been resorts.

"lack of owner occupancy" is a fabricated statistic to fit the narrative they are forcing down your gullet.

I still ask the question if you actually believe the BS you spew, or if you are just a professional agitator here

 

[HitchHiker71]

"lack of owner occupancy" is a fabricated statistic to fit the narrative they are forcing down your gullet.

No, it is not. I’ve seen the occupancy rates for most resorts - they are published in various places for all to see that have eyes and want to do so. The only false narrative here is yours, in a failed attempt to enforce your own.

I still ask the question if you actually believe the BS you spew, or if you are just a professional agitator here

That’s a valid question for you as well, perhaps take a look in the mirror, and remember that when pointing at others, there’s three fingers pointing back at yourself yes? No one is perfect, we all have blind spots, but you are one of the only posters that consistently resorts to labeling other posters on a frequent basis as a defense mechanism whenever anyone has the audacity to challenge your own narratives.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[HitchHiker71]

I call bunk on this one. My question a month ago was to someone who had been provided the option of taking the swap. So yes, it had already started. You can look at this post as a reference. I find it odd that you and several others nitpick my posts as much as you do.

Then don't nitpick in return - it takes two to tango so to speak. Look in the mirror.

 

[dioxide45]

Then don't nitpick in return - it takes two to tango so to speak. Look in the mirror.

Why are you so confrontational today?

 

[HitchHiker71]

I guess if that is your only criticism of me and my question, then IMHO it is more of a you problem.


I will also point out that I had to ask the question again, no one came here voluntarily offering the information as you seemed to imply would happen a month ago.

What? Here's the post that started this: https://tugbbs.com/forums/threads/w...s-unfolding-set-of-events.375888/post-3227744

I see no questions from you on this topic recently prior to this post from a new member. This new member simply posted into this thread indicating they received the CWA swap letter processing paperwork (not the initial intent/intake paperwork) and processed it. So, again, a member came to this post, all on their own, and posted their real world experience, and after that occurred, you and I started asking questions correct? That's my point, timing is important in life. Asking questions in a preliminary fashion that no one could answer a month ago, isn't productive. It might satisfy your curiosity, but it gums up the thread at the same time, as others have pointed out multiple times now. Case in point, a month later, we're just now in a position to actually have some questions answered. Thanks again for proving my point and logical sequencing.

 

[HitchHiker71]

Why are you so confrontational today?

Perhaps because you directly violated the forum moderator's guidance posted just a few days ago here: https://tugbbs.com/forums/threads/w...s-unfolding-set-of-events.375888/post-3227123

 

[shawnee83]

Here's something I found of interest: the monthly operating report for OIRC, operating as a debtor in bankruptcy:

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47562/e78cc80b-d0e7-48a1-82a6-6c4093ce1037_75.pdf

A few things I found interesting:

• The documents show zero employees although the resort is still operating. That would make sense if the only people working there are Wyndham employees.
• It lists all the owners, several of who are "Estate of" which goes back to somebody's comment in this or the other thread about a number of owners being deceased
• There are a number of bank statements as well as some kind of statement from Club Wyndham.

Anyway all of this offers some insight into how these timeshares operate as shown in the documents of one HOA.

 

[chapjim]

How would that affect an owner's choice to accept or decline the swap, now, which is the only time it will be offered?

Last try. If an owner thinks he might cash in in the next two or three months, he may decline the swap. If he thinks it is a year or more in the future, he may say, "screw it, I'm taking the swap."

Not so hard to understand, if trying to understand is what you are doing. If you're just being a crank, I can't help you.

 

[CO skier]

Last try. If an owner thinks he might cash in in the next two or three months, he may decline the swap. If he thinks it is a year or more in the future, he may say, "screw it, I'm taking the swap."

Let us apply some thoughtful logic, instead of emotion, just for a change of pace.

The CWA swap is only a financial liability due to the maintenance fees. It is not like someone can accept the CWA swap and sell it for anything. Someone would accept the CWA maintenance fee liability only if it offers some kind of benefit - they wanted the associated points or they needed the associated points to preserve their VIP status.

In contrast, not accepting the CWA swap offers a possible positive financial outcome "sometime" in the future, maybe. Who in their right mind would accept a financial liability, now, that they have no use for, just because the payout might be "a year or more in the future" or maybe even "never"?

 

[chapjim]

Let us apply some thoughtful logic, instead of emotion, just for a change of pace.

The CWA swap is only a financial liability due to the maintenance fees. It is not like someone can accept the CWA swap and sell it for anything. Someone would accept the CWA maintenance fee liability only if it offers some kind of benefit - they wanted the associated points or they needed the associated points to preserve their VIP status.

In contrast, not accepting the CWA swap offers a possible positive financial outcome "sometime" in the future, maybe. Who in their right mind would accept a financial liability, now, that they have no use for, just because the payout might be "a year or more in the future" or maybe even "never"?

Who? You answered your own question.

 

[shawnee83]

The CWA swap is only a financial liability due to the maintenance fees. It is not like someone can accept the CWA swap and sell it for anything.

Not only the maintenance fees, but the "in perpetuity" nature of it. I'm hoping it works out that we walk away from Shawnee paying nothing. I just there are still enough pennies in circulation when I go to cash the check I might someday receive.

 

[jp10558]

Replying to someone here - ought to be debate content. From:

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

What has changed for you with Wyndham? You have no idea how much I appreciate your question. It's what my Dad would have told me. I miss him and his sage advice so much! It was exactly what I needed to hear. Posting my reply here, as this is the thread where I found my answer: It is likely...

tugbbs.com

So, who looks good after they strip me (or involuntarily cancel) my reservations? It's obscene to me.

So you mean you own at a resort that's closing and or would have reservations at closing resorts? And you don't want to take the CWA swap. Otherwise no idea how they're "Stripping You".

Talk about loophole abuse?

That they are offering a discount on using the waitlist feature? That has nothing to do with renting. I would actually be somewhat surprised if Wyndham had it together enough to know what users reservations will be cancelled till the minute they e-mail each user, forget about setting up some sort of "gotcha" to rent it out ... maybe at the last minute. They don't even know who's taking the swap remember?

Isn't this what the mega renters were accused of? For the record, I'm not here to support them, but I now understand more of what they're saying. And I'm believing them about who the biggest renter of them all is. That post opened up my eyes like a 3 year olds eyes on Christmas morning.

I'm seeing hypocrisy, JMO. I'm making a business decision, I'm not interested in watching them cancel my, or anyones reservations to give them away to someone else.

The only reservations they're cancelling are ones at the closed resorts or ones that were paid for with points from the closed resorts that were from use year 2026 or later. They're not doing it to give them away, they're doing it because the "payment" is being withdrawn. I agree the way they've done this is slap dash and horrible PR and customer relations. the "right way" to do this would have been to schedule the closing 13 months from notification such that no one could have made any reservations with points backed from the disappearing resorts or at the disappearing resorts. Or at least offer to keep existing reservations with payment of the CWA MFs backing cost without making someone join CWA.

(all this is just my opinions and perspective). I don't think I've ever seen such a selfish and short-sighted company. Their beliefs and mine no longer are in harmony. I find myself asking "who exactly is the customer here"?

Read this thread and you'll get an idea - like many companies, the people who count are the shareholders of the corporation. This is debatable as to whether it's a good idea or not.

DVC already bailed out. That certainly got my attention!

No idea what this means.

People want out so bad, the deedback department can't keep up and tells you to keep reaching out to them. Reminds me of a bank run. People lining up to hopefully be able to make a withdrawal. And being turned away and told try again tomorrow. Not saying that is what this is, just sharing what I see in trying to make a business decision. Better yet, look at this:

View attachment 119474

Hey, at least they're offering deedbacks sometimes. Sadly that puts them above most TS companies.

They won't even clean a toilet for 2 weeks. How disgusting, unsanitary and cheap has it become? I don't live like this at home, and pay for professional cleaning of my home weekly. So why would I vacation like this? (Honey, don't forget to pack a toilet brush). Ask for clean linens? It does vary by resort, but I'm regularly being told the company policy is no cleaning or do it yourself linens until check out. But we are happy to supply you as much laundry detergent as you want. Personally, I go on vacation to escape these chores.

Yea, and can you believe hotels no longer do a cleaning daily? The supposed cost for housekeepers is so high that hospitality companies are desperate to keep the numbers down, and service or quality be damned. Then again, compare the average Wyndham yearly MF to say Marriott's where they have better housekeeping (maybe, I don't think they do it more than weekly though).

No longer a product I'm interested in.

This makes sense per the poor housekeeping, but the rest at the top is pretty hard for me to follow.

 

[Double U]

DVC is Disney Vacation Club. They were affiliated with RCI. They left RCI and now you can only exchange into them through Interval International (II). Wyndham will not allow me a choice of my exchange company. Freedom to use whichever I want. They may have reasons, I don't care. It just doesn't work for me anymore. YMMV

 

[paxsarah]

DVC is Disney Vacation Club. They were affiliated with RCI. They left RCI and now you can only exchange into them through Interval International (II). Wyndham will not allow me a choice of my exchange company. Freedom to use whichever I want. They may have reasons, I don't care. It just doesn't work for me anymore. YMMV

Yes, DVC was with II, then they moved to RCI for about a decade, and then 4 years ago they moved back to II. I don't see the relationship to what's going on now, though.

 

[HitchHiker71]

DVC is Disney Vacation Club. They were affiliated with RCI. They left RCI and now you can only exchange into them through Interval International (II). Wyndham will not allow me a choice of my exchange company. Freedom to use whichever I want. They may have reasons, I don't care. It just doesn't work for me anymore. YMMV

What makes you think that was Wyndham's choice? Perhaps that was DVC's decision - and that's who you should be complaining to if that was the case. Wyndham cannot decide for DVC the exchange company they wish to deal with. Chances are, the II contract with DVC requires exclusivity - or at the very least - it prevents use of RCI from a competitive standpoint. That's not Wyndham's fault or decision - it's DVC's choice to go to a competitor.

 

[Arimaas]

What makes you think that was Wyndham's choice? Perhaps that was DVC's decision - and that's who you should be complaining to if that was the case. Wyndham cannot decide for DVC the exchange company they wish to deal with. Chances are, the II contract with DVC requires exclusivity - or at the very least - it prevents use of RCI from a competitive standpoint. That's not Wyndham's fault or decision - it's DVC's choice to go to a competitor.

I’m just pointing out here that it doesn’t seem like the poster once blamed wyndham that DVC went from RCI to II. I don’t see any blame there, so not sure why the need to defend Wyndham. What I do see is the poster saying Wyndham won’t let them choose II or RCI so time for them to move on.

I know this isn’t my “battle” but I thought I would just point this out, in a constrictive manner.

 

[paxsarah]

I’m just pointing out here that it doesn’t seem like the poster once blamed wyndham that DVC went from RCI to II. I don’t see any blame there, so not sure why the need to defend Wyndham. What I do see is the poster saying Wyndham won’t let them choose II or RCI so time for them to move on.

I know this isn’t my “battle” but I thought I would just point this out, in a constrictive manner.

You're right, they said, "DVC already bailed out." "Bail out" gives a negative connotation to whatever is being bailed out from, but other than casting a vaguely negative light on the RCI of 4+ years ago I sincerely have no idea how that decision to switch on the part of DVC has anything to do with the current resorts leaving Club Wyndham.

 

[Double U]

I’m just pointing out here that it doesn’t seem like the poster once blamed wyndham that DVC went from RCI to II. I don’t see any blame there, so not sure why the need to defend Wyndham. What I do see is the poster saying Wyndham won’t let them choose II or RCI so time for them to move on.

I know this isn’t my “battle” but I thought I would just point this out, in a constrictive manner.

Thank you for clarifying on my behalf, thanks for the understanding also.

 

[Double U]

You're right, they said, "DVC already bailed out." "Bail out" gives a negative connotation to whatever is being bailed out from, but other than casting a vaguely negative light on the RCI of 4+ years ago I sincerely have no idea how that decision to switch on the part of DVC has anything to do with the current resorts leaving Club Wyndham.

You're right. Bailed out was an emotional word on my part. I can revise the post?

 

[jp10558]

You're right. Bailed out was an emotional word on my part. I can revise the post?

I was just confused because DVC didn't "Bail Out" from Wyndham, they left RCI. I guess in so far as RCI is owned by Wyndham you could say they left the conglomerate, but that is a really confusing way to put it - in that sense they bailed out from Worldmark and Margaritaville too... And went to II, which is owned by Marriott, so ... joined Marriott?

In terms of not letting you choose the exchange company, that does suck, but HGVC and MVC and DVC on the other side all do the same thing. You could just as much blame DVC for not letting you choose to use RCI to exchange with them.

Now I fully understand generally saying "Wyndham no longer works for my needs", it's just the surrounding reasons and the way you phrased them that left me confused is all.

Heck, I'm on the fence for HGVC - on the one hand, I really like the Aspire credit for MFs defraying the cost of the credit card fee or getting me additional FNCs at Hilton hotels, but on the other hand, they're the second most expensive MF I have, and really the hardest for me to use due to the limited locations. The most "interesting location" for me so far is McAlpin / Ocean Plaza, but it's a lot of luck to get a 2BR there in the club booking window. And if for "reasons" I really had to stay in an HGVC in MB or Orlando or Las Vegas or Carlsbad I have at least sometimes seen them come up in Extra Vacations in RCI, so I don't really need HGVC to book those. And RCI Points from Grandview work best for RCI exchanges IMO, and Wyndham also gets me RCI cash stays so... Aside from saying I own HGVC, I'm not sure it's that useful to me.

So I might be looking to exit them next year. Even losing the $400 credit defrayment, it still would save me $1,500 in MFs. I'm just going to take the year or so to debate if I'm going to go to Hawaii ever or not, which might maybe be the place to use them. So I understand re-balancing / re-thinking your ownership.

 

[HitchHiker71]

I’m just pointing out here that it doesn’t seem like the poster once blamed wyndham that DVC went from RCI to II. I don’t see any blame there, so not sure why the need to defend Wyndham. What I do see is the poster saying Wyndham won’t let them choose II or RCI so time for them to move on.

I know this isn’t my “battle” but I thought I would just point this out, in a constrictive manner.

They said and I quote:

Wyndham will not allow me a choice of my exchange company. Freedom to use whichever I want. They may have reasons, I don't care. It just doesn't work for me anymore. YMMV

I read that as the poster assigning some level of responsibility to Wyndham not allowing them the choice of their exchange company - when in point of fact that was DVC's decision - so perhaps nitpicking on my part - but if the OP was assigning responsibility to DVC - then that sentence should have stated "DVC will not allow me a choice of my exchange company" correct? I was simply reading what was written. Words can sometimes be tone deaf, so perhaps I was mistaken, but that's how it came across to me.

 

[Arimaas]

They said and I quote:

I read that as the poster assigning some level of responsibility to Wyndham not allowing them the choice of their exchange company - when in point of fact that was DVC's decision. Is that not what they actually wrote? Words can sometimes be tone deaf, so perhaps I was mistaken, but that's how it came across to me.

How I read it is exactly how I posted it in my response - Wyndham will not give the poster the choice to go between II or RCI. Some systems exchange in both. Wyndham does not allow. You can ask the poster what they meant, I don’t need to speak for them. But that’s how I read it. I didn’t read anything about the poster being blaming Wyndham that DVC “bailed out” from rci to iI

Edit: also even if the poster did assign some level of blame, why is that a bad thing? Why is there always a rush to defend Wyndham ? None of us were in the board room during that decision, how do we know what goes on? Why can’t someone express their frustration without someone here running to be the contrarian in favor of Wyndham ?