[2008] Southcape Resort

[Sou13]

Time to review "answers"

We need to all go back and review Cliff Hagberg's posts.

For starters, I'm suspicious of his reasons for joining the discussion. We are here as Southcape owners who have been solicited by Outfield Marketing to "convert" our deeded weeks to Festiva "points"!

How many of our concerns has he satisfactorily addressed? He tried to blow me off by asking why I should be so concerned about developer rights?

Let's take a closer look at those "rights" and find out what they are supposed to be!

Have you been perusing the entire Master Deed? Look at BOOK 3526 PAGE 002. I don't know how to copy and paste this, so I'll quote it:

WHEREAS the Declarant intends to transfer to SOUTHCAPE RESORT & CLUB COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, INC. (hereinafter "Corporation") the aforementioned Lot 1 and 7, to be maintained, operated, improved or administered by SOUTHCAPE RESORT & CLUB COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, INC. as herein provided.

Now go to BOOK 3526 PAGE 007 and look at 6. Easement for Construction of Residential Units: Here we learn that the Atlantic Metropolitan Corporation intended to construct 132 residential units.

Whatever became of the Atlantic Metropolitan Corporation may be worth investigating, as well as whatever became of Barth and Woods. I know there are TUG members who love to delve into these things, so is anyone willing?

I once heard that an expert is someone who knows 10,000 sexual positions and has never had sex. Or a drip under pressure. I am not an expert.

I have spent a fair amount of time reading the Master Deed, the timeshare trust agreements, and the by-laws at SC.

Clearly the thing that is scaring me away as a prospective owner is that the resort is still fully in developer control after 20 or 30 years of operation. I think most by-laws are written under the premise that a resort will have a short period of developer control while build out occurs, and control will pass to the owners as the units are sold. And I fully understand why a developer would need the protections afforded to them during the build-out phase.

But here we have a resort where development has stopped, but the developer still is in control of the resort after 20 or 30 years. And that control might never end. That combined with the fact the assessment dollars will be used to improve NEVS property is a major issue for me.

And given Cliff's track record in real estate, I think he is being disingenuous about his understanding of the law. No one works as a real estate developer or holds the position he holds, without a solid understanding of real estate law. I understand the need for a disclaimer, but give us more credit than that.

 

[ecwinch]

Sou13 - I think you are on the right track. The way the documents are structured, NEVS might never give up control of the resort.

If you refer to Article V, Section 2.a, you will see that NEVS will retain at 51% of the control until all 132 units are constructed. If I understood the previous post about the township seizing some lots, is it even possible for SC to build 132 units?

And given what I have read in the Sandcastle thread, I see a number of similarities. I particularly like the comments that their is no reason for the HOA to form, since the trust is still under developer control and they would have nothing to vote on.

One have to wonder if there is not a pattern here that NEVS is exploiting - i.e. take over incomplete resorts that are still under developer control, and have owners pay to improve the property.

 

[Sou13]

Let's all be on the same page here

I had to scroll down to p. 34 in order to find Article V, Section 2.a which is found in BOOK 3526 PAGE 031. Has anyone noticed how "Developer" Hagberg tried to blow me off when I raised questions and concerns about "developer rights"?

Sou13 - I think you are on the right track. The way the documents are structured, NEVS might never give up control of the resort.

If you refer to Article V, Section 2.a, you will see that NEVS will retain at 51% of the control until all 132 units are constructed. If I understood the previous post about the township seizing some lots, is it even possible for SC to build 132 units?

And given what I have read in the Sandcastle thread, I see a number of similarities. I particularly like the comments that their is no reason for the HOA to form, since the trust is still under developer control and they would have nothing to vote on.

One have to wonder if there is not a pattern here that NEVS is exploiting - i.e. take over incomplete resorts that are still under developer control, and have owners pay to improve the property.

 

[Sou13]

I know you say that I should stick to the Festiva board since you feel that my comments should be there. Maybe the Southscape forum should be moved to the Festiva points thread since Festiva already has it listed as their newest vacation destination. http://www.festivaresorts.com/southcape.php

Tom

Does that photo with the Festiva emblem on it look like anything other than a newly refurbished Condo I unit to any of you Southcape owners?

 

[NEVMSLLC]

Actually, it's a unit in Condo II.

 

[ecwinch]

Actually, it's a unit in Condo II.

Cliff,

Since your still reading posts in thread, can you answer the following:

How does it benefits SC owners to have funds from the special assessment improve NEVS inventory of weeks?

Does the amount of property still under SC control allow 132 units to be built?

Thanks

 

[NEVMSLLC]

Less than 5% of NEVS inventory is located in the 24 units that are being completely renovated. That doesn't benefit NEVS at all. There are no plans to renovate the units where NEVS owns the majority of its week. We're doing it because the resort needs it and it will benefit all of the owners. Frankly, it's the right thing to do.

To the second question, the answer is no. The former developers did not pay taxes on the additional land and the land was taken by the town for back taxes. Part of that land includes the parking area by the clubhouse and tennis courts. Southcape owners have lost that land as well. The town put up chains to prevent owners and guests from using that parking area and none of the owners got upset about that. The town refused to negotiate with the former developers. I have an agreement in principle with the town that will guarantee Southcape owners and guests to use the parking area in perpetuity. I hope to have it formalized before the annual meeting. Funny, how no one ever got mad at the former developers . . .

 

[Sanford]

Cliff,
I really don't think ANYBODY would be mad or be questioning save:
1) The appearance of inappropriateness of OUTFIELD being Trustees and lack of clarity as to their roles and motivations and also their marketing efforts solely focused on converting deeded owners to Festiva Points ( WHY?)
2) The lack of clarity of the role and relationship of Festiva and the appearance of a clever subtrafuge and takeover of the TS.
3) The appearance of an insecure future for existing deeded owners in the event their Ts' are taken away from them as Festiva and Outfield manuever things for SOMEONE's obvious gain ( other than the righful existing owners)
4) The lack of full disclosure of all the interwoven aspects of these relationships between NEVS, Outfield, Festiva and the true agenda, none of which has been disclosed as all Contracts are being touted as "classified"
5) festiva's purported track record at other TShares and the result to the deeded owners who watched as Festiva got increased control and maintenance fees were raised beyond others ability to pay, this Festiva took over...
etc etc etc.
S

 

[wmauryd]

whole ownership

You are proposing converting the resort from a timeshare to a condominium-- Separate ownership of each unit-- Do I have it right?

Each unit wholly owned.
Yes not a TS

 

[NEVMSLLC]

Hi Sanford

I try the best I can to explain things but there are some things I simply cannot discuss, particularly in a public forum. My track record is easy to trace with a simple Google search on my name and you can find out my history and what I believe in. If people chose to think I'm lying for some reason, I can't do anything about that. I'm not, but I also can't prove a negative.

1. Why would it be inappropriate for a member of one of the top sales and marketing organizations in the country to be a board member of a resort that desperately needs sales and marketing? We have NEVS inventory and delinquent inventory that has to be sold and will be sold. I would hope that Southcape owners would feel comforted knowing that there are true professionals involved.

2. There is no role for Festiva other than as an exchange company. There are protections in place to prevent what happened at other resorts I just can't discuss an agreement that has a confidentiality clause.

3. No one is taking anyone's timeshare away. Owners who join Festiva deed their weeks to Festiva because they believe that the Festiva points program will benefit them. No one has to or is being forced to join Festiva (or RCI or II for that matter). The gains are obvious. Festiva gets new members and access for their members to a beautiful resort on Cape Cod. Outfield gets a commission for handling sales. NEVS makes money by selling the weeks they have purchased. The resort benefits by generating more maintenance fee income. Everyone wins.

4. There is no lack of full disclosure, that's why I'm here to answer questions. I can't give legal opinions unlike other posters on this site. It's called the unauthorized practice of law and it's a crime. I can't comment on or publish contracts that have confidentiality clauses. Festiva is independent and has no interest in NEVS or Outfield. NEVS has no interest in Festiva or Outfield. Outfield has no interest in Festiva but does have an interest in NEVS.

The true agendas are also simple. Festiva wants a Cape Cod resort for their members and to have new members. Outfield wants to sell the NEVS and delinquent weeks. NEVS wants to sell its weeks. I want to manage the property for the benefit of all the owners. There really is no conspiracy, hidden agenda or other scheme. If all parties do the best things they can to benefit the resort as a whole, all will make money, including the resort. The owners will have a fully renovated resort, little or no delinquency, a modern management system, fully subscribed maintenance fees and financial stability.

5. Festiva didn't raise maintenance fees, I recommended them and the board approved. The resort has been running at an operating deficit for years with virtually no reserves and to allow that situation to continue would have been financially irresponsible. The special assessment was recommended by me and approved by the board. Come to the resort and see the problems that were never addressed first hand. I'd love to show any owner around so they can see for themselves. A full presentation will be made at the annual meeting. What happened with Festiva at other resorts is not happening at Southcape. Period.

 

[e.bram]

Only 8(maybe only 7)weeks have any value on Cape Cod. Who is going to buy the off season weeks. I don't care how good a sales and marketing team Oldfield has, they ain't going to sell. You can't even give them away(oceanfront like Surfside included). As wholly owned condos the units are salable. I think the ploy is to get control of the TS, hike the MFs so more owners walk away till the TS becomes financially unstable and sell if off as condo units. The TS is like GM, only I don't think the Fed id going to bail them out. Converting to points is just throwing good money after bad. The Cape is dead outside of prime summer except for residents and summer homes. As a condo the MFs would probably be 1/3 the present MFs and make units very attractive as vacation homes.

 

[NEVMSLLC]

Again, not true e.bram

I've been doing timeshare resales on Cape Cod and new England for 17 years. I sell off season weeks all the time. I used to sell at Oceancliff where you own and I sold blue offseason weeks starting at $1,995 and I sold hundreds of them. I sold two offseason weeks at Brewster Green already this week and three at the Ponds at Foxhollow in the Berkshires. Did you like what happened to Oceancliff after I sold all of the association weeks and the board thought they didn't need sales anymore? Did you like the special assessment you had a few years ago? Do you know how many delinquent owners your resort has now that I'm not there to sell for them anymore? Last I knew it was over 800 weeks not paying maintenance fees. How much does that cost you? $500,000 a year? I'm not going to let that happen at Southcape.

Maybe Surfside could use me as well . . .

I know all three of your resorts very well and could tell you about similar problems at resorts all over New England because they don't have anyone to do sales and marketing. Care to ask where Brewster Green was before they brought in professional management and me to do resales?

Whole ownership condos at Southcape is simply never going to happen. The economics don't justify it.

Cliff

 

[e.bram]

I am happy I don't own Southcape. You owners are in trouble.

 

[Sou13]

Found elsewhere on TUG

Again, not true e.bram

I've been doing timeshare resales on Cape Cod and new England for 17 years. I sell off season weeks all the time. I used to sell at Oceancliff where you own and I sold blue offseason weeks starting at $1,995 and I sold hundreds of them. I sold two offseason weeks at Brewster Green already this week and three at the Ponds at Foxhollow in the Berkshires. Did you like what happened to Oceancliff after I sold all of the association weeks and the board thought they didn't need sales anymore? Did you like the special assessment you had a few years ago? Do you know how many delinquent owners your resort has now that I'm not there to sell for them anymore? Last I knew it was over 800 weeks not paying maintenance fees. How much does that cost you? $500,000 a year? I'm not going to let that happen at Southcape.

Maybe Surfside could use me as well . . .

I know all three of your resorts very well and could tell you about similar problems at resorts all over New England because they don't have anyone to do sales and marketing. Care to ask where Brewster Green was before they brought in professional management and me to do resales?

Whole ownership condos at Southcape is simply never going to happen. The economics don't justify it.

Cliff

Here's what one resort is doing about defaulted weeks:

At one of the timeshares I own, defaulted and unsold weeks are offered to owners as bonus time for the cost of MF +taxes and a $5 fee. These weeks are only available to owners, not deposited into the exchange companie pools. The program has been so successful that the HOA voted to reduce the reservation period to only 6 months out instead of the previous 12 months. All fees are paid upfront, use is weekly only and there is NO cancelation refunds. Bonus time is also available up to the day of usage with a 2 night minimum for a cost of 1/7th mf per nite. We have taken advantage of many extra vacation weeks (and a few nights booked for friends & relatives to join us) using this bonus time without actually buying more weeks and locking ourselves into future MF each year. All HOA should offer this kind of program to their owners. It's a win/win for owners & the resort treasury.
http://www.tugbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=90757&highlight=Festiva
February 7, 2009, 05:32 PM #12
barndweller
TUG Member

Not that I'm suggesting it would work for Southcape, but the resort does offer rentals for a minumum two-night stay. My daughter and her friends used to do this every January.

I've been sounding the alarm about what's going on at Southcape because I was contacted by a telemarketer who wanted to make an appointment for Outfield Marketing to meet me in my home to "explain the changes" now that Southcape has been "sold"!

If Outfield Marketing is working for Southcape, why can't they come to my home to offer me one of those unsold NEVS weeks? According to FestivaRep, Outfield Marketing has a contract with Festiva to sell deeded timeshare owners "conversions" to Festiva points, and if we want to buy points without "converting" our deeds we have to go to an office in Maine!

Again, why can't we meet with a sales rep in our homes to buy points without converting our deeds?

I've posted a private exchange with a satisfied FAC member who has actually stayed at only one Festiva Resort and has done all his exchanges through Interval International. He attended a sales meeting while staying at the Church Street Inn and was offered bonus points the first year!

At Southcape Resort we have had the choice of II or RCI depending upon whether we were buying weeks in Condo I or Condo II. Has that changed? Joining either exchange club is optional, but it's in addition to, not instead of, owning a deeded week. We don't have the option of joining the Festiva Adventure Club without "converting" our deeded weeks to Festiva "points" . . . truth or "untruth"?

 

[NEVMSLLC]

The type of program of offering association owned weeks to owners either for exchange or a reduced rental works for some resorts that do not have a lot of inventory and owns weeks in high demand time periods. The problem is what happens if the association has a lot of weeks that no one wants? What happens when the resort has more weeks than there is demand?

If the goal is to generate maintenance fees for each week, then the obvious answer is to have someone own every week. With that program, there is no guarantee of income or even demand. Inn addition, it makes a resale program almost impossible. Why would an owner purchase a week if they can just use one anytime they want?

I've worked with this program at several resorts and have lots of documentation to back up my claim. In every case, when the resort realizes the harm that can come from that type of program, they've eliminated it. I would put a caveat in there. A resort should only abandon that program if there is another way to replace non-performing owners with maintenance fee paying owners. In the absence of a good sales program, it can be an effective way of generating income for the resort.

Your last paragraph is "truth". If an owner decides to join Festiva, they will deed their week to Festiva in return for points.

 

[Sou13]

Did I recommend it?

The type of program of offering association owned weeks to owners either for exchange or a reduced rental works for some resorts that do not have a lot of inventory and owns weeks in high demand time periods. The problem is what happens if the association has a lot of weeks that no one wants? What happens when the resort has more weeks than there is demand?

If the goal is to generate maintenance fees for each week, then the obvious answer is to have someone own every week. With that program, there is no guarantee of income or even demand. Inn addition, it makes a resale program almost impossible. Why would an owner purchase a week if they can just use one anytime they want?

I've worked with this program at several resorts and have lots of documentation to back up my claim. In every case, when the resort realizes the harm that can come from that type of program, they've eliminated it. I would put a caveat in there. A resort should only abandon that program if there is another way to replace non-performing owners with maintenance fee paying owners. In the absence of a good sales program, it can be an effective way of generating income for the resort.

Your last paragraph is "truth". If an owner decides to join Festiva, they will deed their week to Festiva in return for points.

And I didn't recommend it, did I?

Not that I'm suggesting it would work for Southcape, but the resort does offer rentals for a minumum two-night stay. My daughter and her friends used to do this every January.

How could we have rental income if there were no available weeks?

I'm not even advocating total owner control of Southcape. We owners don't know enough about the business to be attempting to manage it ourselves.

What worries me is that there are two Outfield Marketing "principals" on the Board of Trustees. One of the seats on the Board should be occupied by a Southcape interval owner if my understanding of the bylaws is correct. It might not get us anywhere but to have more of a say on behalf or owners, even it the "Declarant's Director" controls 67% of the vote.

Nor am I volunteering for the position, only hoping to see this on the agenda for the annual meeting and hoping there is a deeded owner somewhere closer to Mashpee who is willing to volunteer for this position.

According to FestivaRep, the Festiva "trust" gets one vote for each Southcape owner who "converts" to Festiva "points" and pays the $595+400 for each deed in the trust. That gives one vote to the trust for every deeded owner who gets "scared" (I'll tell you how that one works when I see you May 16) into converting by an Outfield Marketing sales rep. Festiva could easily get that 3rd seat on the Board . . . truth or "untruth"?

If there are only 1600+ MF-paying deeded owners (including FAC members), 1600+500 does not add up to 51x55 (55 unitsx51 weeks). You do the math. Are the remaining weeks delinquent? Will they be repossessed and offered for sale?

According to the outdated Master Deed, if there is an available unit prior to a "float" week owner's week the float week owner should be able to extend the stay by paying rent for no less than two(?)* nights. Is this happening and if not, why not?

*I doublechecked the deed on this one and found (BOOK 3526 page094ff) that there is no minimum stay, only a maximum of 7 days. This means that if the six days prior to a reserved 7 or 3 days are not reserved, the float week owner can add as much as a week to the interval by paying a per diem charge for those bonus days.

 

[NEVMSLLC]

LOL, no you didn't recommend it and I even said it can be a good idea!

There will be no elections at the annual meeting as no election is called for. If Festiva had all of the owners votes, they could still not obtain a seat on the board. For the same reason. I know you've read the documents and the same reasons that preclude owner representatives on the board at the current time, also prevent Festiva.

As to your question about floating time, I have instituted a resort policy that we try to accommodate owners whenever and wherever possible. We do a number of things that aren't even addressed in the documents. We do explain to the owner that we are making an exception but we tell them that, as the resort gets sold out, we will probably not be able to continue making exceptions. It is not a right that they may always have. We will do things for owners when we can. My belief is that it helps the owners and it helps the resort so why not do it?

 

[ecwinch]

What happens when the resort has more weeks than there is demand?

There are many ways to handle this problem - a lottery for one.

In addition, it makes a resale program almost impossible. Why would an owner purchase a week if they can just use one anytime they want?

This makes it sound like a resale program is built on existing owners, not bringing in new owners. Hope, I mis-understood.

In every case, when the resort realizes the harm that can come from that type of program, they've eliminated it.

In terms of "harm" - do you mean that the resale program is ineffective, or something else?

I think Sou13 is suggesting an alternative that would enhance owner value at SC, and in turn making it more attractive to own at SC. Most timeshare systems (VRI, Wyndham, Worldmark), have some type of similar program. The basic premise is that no unit should sit empty. This way at least some revenue is coming in, and it makes it more attractive to own at that resort.

 

[ecwinch]

For the same reason. I know you've read the documents and the same reasons that preclude owner representatives on the board at the current time, also prevent Festiva.

Cliff,

If you wanted to have owner representation on the board, are you saying that you could not make that happen? Is it unreasonable to suggest that owners need to be represented and have a voice in economic decisions that directly affect them?

Can you describe the point in time that you do see owner representation on the board - short of 100% of the weeks being sold?

And it not clear that even then owner representation would be required. Most of the documents focus on the 132 units being built, which you have established is not possible.

Thanks

 

[NEVMSLLC]

Hi eric

Again, I'm answering questions from someone who is not an owner but I think the issues are important for all Southcape owners to understand so I'll try my best.

A lottery won't work. Tried it. Ebay won't work. Tried it. Giving them away won't work. Tried it. when I first began a resale program at the Oceancliff in Newport, RI, the board was trying to sell association owned summer weeks for $800 and hadn't been able to sell any of them. Why would they? Owners had paid well over $10,000 when they bought in the 1980's. The first thing I did was raise the price to $8,000. If you bought anything for $12,000 and I told you that you could now buy another one for $800, how would you feel? Right, you were a sucker to buy the first one and you're not going to make that mistake again! If I told you that the resort had taken a week back from a delinquent owner and was offering it at only $8,000 because we want someone to pay the maintenance fee, there's a much better chance you'd snap it up because now you can own two at an average price of only $10,000 instead of the $12,000 you'd paid. i sold all the summer weeks in less than 90 days.

A good resale program happens on site at the resort. The internet doesn't work, advertising doesn't work and most everything else doesn't work either. I may be the country's leading authority in timeshare resales. Check me out on the internet with a Google search. At resort after resort, our sales breakdown pretty much like this. 60% to existing owners and owner referrals, 20% to exchangers, 10% to renters and about 10% from miscellaneous sources.

The harm comes from when I ask an owner to buy another week for let's say $10,000 and they say why should I do that when I can use one anytime i want for just the maintenance fee?? Why would anyone buy another week under those circumstances. It kills a resale program.

I agree that no unit should sit empty and that's why we work very hard to increase rentals because those renters become a sales opportunity if they like the resort.

VRI, Wyndham and Worldmark (among others) do offer this type of program. VRI has been trying to do a resale program at their resorts for over twenty years and still doesn't have a successful one. There's a reason why, at one time or another, VRI brought my company in to do resale programs at all of their resorts in New England. That's also why, at one point, VRI tried to buy my company. VRI is a very good management company, they just don't understand sales. I still work closely with VRI. At one resort where they don't offer that bonus program, I've kept the resort over 98% sold out every year since 1996. At another, I sell over 150 association owned delinquent weeks every year.

In a healthy resort, income comes from maintenance fees and rentals to outside prospects who might become an owner, not from renting inventory to existing owners at a discount. That's a closed system that eventually deteriorates.

As Sou13 will tell you, I am in the process of setting up an owner advisory board that will consist of individual unit owners. I don't know of a single developer anywhere that has anything like this at all. I means a lot more work for me but I think it's worth it. I have a list of potential volunteers and I will finalize the board after the annual meeting when I know who is interested in serving. This board will serve several functions. They will act as a "phantom" board and be involved in providing input into all decisions at Southcape. When the time comes to turn over the board to the owners, we will have a group of experienced volunteers who will be available to stand for election. They will know the resort, the process, the problems, the solutions and will hopefully continue the work we've begun in making Southcape the best resort possible. My hope is that, if I've done a good job, they'll keep me. If I haven't, they should throw me out. Now there's an incentive - I like my job!

 

[ecwinch]

When the time comes to turn over the board to the owners, we will have a group of experienced volunteers who will be available to stand for election.

Cliff,

I'll ask the question again - when will that time come and what would trigger it?

And while I certainly applaude the fact that you want owner input and are taking steps to do that, I think you recognize that most developers do not need an owners advisory board. They have owners on the board, or owner controlled boards. Owners empowered to actually make decisions, not merely provide advice.

In most resorts, it is the managing entity that advises the board, and the owners on the board make the decisions. Not the other way around.

And I will have to give you credit, if you can sell someone something for $8k that they could have bought a few weeks earilier for $800, then you are truely a great sales person. And thanks for the background on the correlation between price and perceived value.

I'll leave it to Sou13 to comment on rentals to owners being a closed system. I did not read that it would work that way.

 

[ClamsCasino]

Southcape Update

Cliff,

1. When will the new Southcape Resort website be ready?
2. Why are prospective owners via the website directed to call Greg Hughes from Outfield rather than IVS to purchase a deeded week? Will Greg be offering deeded week interval or only pushing Festiva points?
3. Have you considered implementing a referral fee for any current owners that refer a new Southcape owner?

 

[NEVMSLLC]

Again, I'll answer this question because it's important to Southcape owners.

The simple answer is, we're still seeking legal opinion on that. The problem is that there are multiple properties involved, multiple Master Deeds, multiple Timeshare Supplements, multiple Declarations and Covenants, multiple Trusts, at least one Corporation and conflicting state laws!!! They are not consistent. The quotes I've seen on here are only from one document out of dozens.

Everyone seems to agree that now is not the time but when the actual time happens depends on which documents you are reading. This is one of the main reasons why I cannot offer or relate legal opinions. The time will come but I cannot tell as yet when that will be. That's why I want to be prepared with an advisory board so we don't all of a sudden have an entire board of new people. I've been that route and would not want to go there again. At one resort i worked with, it actually led to a fist fight between an owner and newly elected board member at an annual meeting. The police were called, three people were arrested and a good time was had by all.

I guess what bothers me most is the assumption that what I am doing, NEVS is doing and Outfield is doing is automatically wrong and not in the best interests of all the owners without a single shred of evidence to support the claim. I won't comment on what was going on before I became involved but, good heavens, we're the first ones to try an fix things in twenty years. I don't expect everyone to agree with me, but at least here, and with my conversation with owners, I have an opportunity to tell people the truth about what's going one and to get their input as well. For that, I'm grateful.

It's all good, Eric.

Cliff

 

[NEVMSLLC]

Ouch, the website is a sore subject with me. The problem with the website is that we've ordered a new computer system that will allow us to publish rental inventory in real time on the internet, both through our own site and travel related sites such as Orbitz, Travelocity, Expedia, etc. The data we inherited from the "old regime" is such a mess that we've been working on it for months to clean it up. At the moment, we expect the conversion to be completed within the next week or so, training to start the middle of April and final design approval on the website in April as well. I'm using a whip and chair on everyone to have things up and running by the annual meeting. I had thought we'd have one done by December. It reminds me of the old story of how do you make God laugh? You tell him your plans . . .

IVS cannot sell weeks as we still represent some individual owners who have listed their weeks for sale with us. For IVS to represent those owners and NEVS would be a clear conflict of interest and so I won't do it. Greg will be back in April and he will be offering both Festiva points and Southcape weeks depending on what will work best for the individual buyer. The idea that only Festiva points will be offered is simply incorrect.

I know referral fees are commonly offered but they are prohibited unless the referring owner is a licensed real estate broker. Real estate companies are not supposed to offer compensation to anyone other than a licensed broker. In my experience, by explaining to the owners the obvious advantages of referring family and friends and appealing to their own enlightened self interest, we've had plenty of referrals.

How much do you want?

Cliff

 

[ecwinch]

I don't expect everyone to agree with me, but at least here, and with my conversation with owners, I have an opportunity to tell people the truth about what's going one and to get their input as well. For that, I'm grateful.

And likewise we are grateful for your honest answers. The process can be trying at times, but I give you high marks for participating. Time will tell, but I think you started out on the right foot.

I guess what bothers me most is the assumption that what I am doing, NEVS is doing and Outfield is doing is automatically wrong and not in the best interests of all the owners without a single shred of evidence to support the claim.

Regarding NEVS, I do not have that assumption, hence my pointed questions on your intentions. I think you understand how NEVS not paying m/f for their inventory is unequitable. You have a lot of power in the current situation, but how you use it will be the true test.

Regarding Outfield, I would suggest re-reading some of the posts regarding them. The evidence presented here suggests that they are using fear tactics to convince SC owners to convert to Festiva. Suggesting that the resort is about to be hit by huge assessments that they can avoid by converting to Festiva does not help your cause, nor the sales of NEVS inventory. That is a seperate topic, and you there is some guilt by association.

Again, I'll answer this question because it's important to Southcape owners.

I've ignored the cavet for a while. You clearly can choose who to respond to, but this is a public forum. I would suggest that a private venue is appropriate if you only want a particular group to participate.

It's all good, Eric.
Cliff

I agree - it is for now. Hope it stays that way.