Based on the discussion, I took it that the type of association was somehow a determining factor if an association was pushed to bankruptcy. From that, I was merely trying to understand the difference between the two terms, which at this point I still don't really understand. I can understand a WVR more so than an association. Perhaps the two are one in the same? I would take a WVR to be a property that was initially developed by Wyndham or a predecessor (like Fairfield) vs one that was bought or affiliate. That said, I still don't think all all intervals at Fairfield resorts are 100% in Club Wyndham and both associations at Star Island seem to be deeded weekly intervals. At one time when Star Island was mostly sold out, Wyndham probably controlled very little inventory at both of Star Island associations. They only regained control when they stood up CWA and started to reacquire deeds to feed point sales.
Yes, to use your prior post:
Wyndham association = WVR
Non-Wyndham Association = non-WVR
In general, the HOAs/associations would align with the above. A "Wyndham HOA" would only manage/contain inventory from a WVR. A "non-Wyndham HOA" would only manage/contain inventory from a non-WVR. Hence why VB SI falls into the Affiliate/Associate/non-WVR/Non-Wyndham HOA terms. Hopefully we can finally put this diatribe to bed?
Perhaps you were saying the type of association was a determining factor for how many intervals Wyndham controlled? I was saying that the determining factor for bankruptcy was because of the control. But it appears that Wyndham didn't discriminate between the two association when reacquiring deeds for CWA.
No, I was, again, simply defining terms, since you obviously took issue with the terms. Obviously, I didn't boil it down enough for you in the first few rounds of posts. I will endeavor to be more direct next time.
I guess this goes back to my last statement. Do they not control the membership because they didn't develop Vacation Break or do they not control it just because they never reacquired enough intervals to take control?
No, I was implying that Wyndham only holds a small minority of inventory at non-WVR resorts - which is always the case. As
@comicbookman said, the non-WVR HOAs have no reason or incentive for Wyndham to acquire a majority of their resort inventory - unlike the WVR resorts - wherev - as a general rule -
only Wyndham manages and owns all unsold inventory, via established agreements between the HOAs and Wyndham (the resort management company), that Wyndham leverages to either create revenue or to resell as VOIs on behalf of the HOA). Wyndham
never sells VOIs using non-WVRs in comparison. Essentially, there are Club Wyndham resorts (WVRs/Wyndham Associations/HOAs), and non-Club Wyndham resorts (affiliate/associate/non-WVR/Non-Wyndham Associations/HOAs). You might not like the terms, but quite frankly that's your problem, don't make it other people's problem just because you have a problem with it or cannot understand it, just learn to live with it. People use terms all of the time that I don't like or don't understand, you don't see me arguing with them repeatedly about using those terms, I just "read through the lines" so to speak to interpret what they really mean.
You are stating that Vacation Break wouldn't have attempted exit even if Wyndham had majority because they didn't have majority because it is non-WVR. To me, that just seems a circular reference.
That's not what I said - that's what you falsely interpreted, here's what I actually said: Even if Wyndham held a majority on the VB HOA board, for whatever reason, it would still in point of fact be a non-WVR HOA/resort, because the VB SI HOAs were never part of WVR to begin with, they stand apart from WVR/Club Wyndham legally and logistically.
I never, I repeat, never said what you're falsely claiming I said. YOU are making that interpretation, inaccurately. I was merely addressing definitions of terms you took issue with, nothing less and nothing more. I try really hard not to assign motives to people's words. I expect the same in return. You seem to think I'm a Wyndham apologist, when that's not the case at all, I never have been. I am trying to provide valuable information to all involved by working with Wyndham to the best of my ability, that's all. Just because I'm relaying information that I receive, doesn't mean I agree with it, it simply means I'm relaying that information, which ironically, is oftentimes because a forum member here on TUG
asked me to do so in the first place. I find it supremely ironic that I'm labeled either overtly or covertly in this manner, meanwhile I'm literally only doing what other forum members are asking of me. Truly the very definition of irony in many respects.
). I am just hoping we see some amount of savings in CWA maintenance fees give the reasons they stated for pushing these properties through bankruptcy.
