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

[CO skier]

I agree, but others never took that path. I got under the impression that others thought it was because Vacation Break was a "non-Wyndham association". Wyndham having control was one of the additional required criteria (on top of occupancy, survey feedback and future assessments) that was used regarding the selection of resorts for closure.

Wyndham having "the votes in the bag" appeared on page 2 of the "Wyndham is closing a handful of legacy resorts" thread. It has been a given from the beginning.

 

[dioxide45]

Wyndham having "the votes in the bag" appeared on page 2 of the "Wyndham is closing a handful of legacy resorts" thread. It has been a given from the beginning.

The discussion was more about the public facing communications from Wyndham, which lacked that detail. All communications from Wyndham is "the associations", kinda a "don't blame us". I do blame Wyndham. Do I understand the rational? Of course, but they should own it.

 

[CO skier]

The discussion was more about the public facing communications from Wyndham, which lacked that detail. All communications from Wyndham is "the associations", kinda a "don't blame us". I do blame Wyndham. Do I understand the rational? Of course, but they should own it.

"Blame" is one side of the coin, on the other side are the smiling faces of owners who are "getting out from under" their timeshare ownership, and maybe, someday getting a payout.

This whole process is no different than a corporation where someone owns more than 50% of the stock. That owner controls the direction of the corporation, but all actions are taken by the corporation.

Wyndham is not "hiding" behind "the associations." That is just the structure of the HOAs. Owner(s) call for a vote. The HOA holds vote of the owners. The resolution passes or it does not. Events play out from there.

 

[paxsarah]

Not that I want to revisit in depth what more Wyndham might have been able to say earlier in the process and when, but the fact that this is on the list of resorts on the Club Wyndham website is pretty amusing to me after the pages of discussion we've had about it (italics are Wyndham's):

• Shawnee (pending final owner vote, which is expected to pass by a majority)

 

[jp10558]

Not that I want to revisit in depth what more Wyndham might have been able to say earlier in the process and when, but the fact that this is on the list of resorts on the Club Wyndham website is pretty amusing to me after the pages of discussion we've had about it (italics are Wyndham's):

• Shawnee (pending final owner vote, which is expected to pass by a majority)

I guess now enough has already happened that even though they wanted to keep silent till everything was done, they realized Shawnee wouldn't complete this year and so feel the need to post something before people show up to shut down resorts. And they still might if they didn't notice the post the day before Thanksgiving. Or might not if Wyndham gets around to e-mailing them before they've left on their trip.

Also, for all the Wyndham defenders, this all played out basically like the "worst case scenario" imagined by the skeptics - no notice till T-30 days, no e-mail notice to bunches of people (and I question a post on a news section of their website that I wonder if anyone actually reads as a "notice".), what communications have gone out to affected owners leave a lot of questions from the owners, and a sudden loss of locations to everyone else that isn't living on TUG. Even our questioning of AIs shows that a huge percentage of the info is from TUG THREADS. This is pretty insane.

 

[dioxide45]

I guess now enough has already happened that even though they wanted to keep silent till everything was done, they realized Shawnee wouldn't complete this year and so feel the need to post something before people show up to shut down resorts. And they still might if they didn't notice the post the day before Thanksgiving. Or might not if Wyndham gets around to e-mailing them before they've left on their trip.

Also, for all the Wyndham defenders, this all played out basically like the "worst case scenario" imagined by the skeptics - no notice till T-30 days, no e-mail notice to bunches of people (and I question a post on a news section of their website that I wonder if anyone actually reads as a "notice".), what communications have gone out to affected owners leave a lot of questions from the owners, and a sudden loss of locations to everyone else that isn't living on TUG. Even our questioning of AIs shows that a huge percentage of the info is from TUG THREADS. This is pretty insane.

It took me a few minutes to actually find it on the website. There isn't a popup or notice that I saw. I had to actually navigate to the "Resort News" section, after I found that. Unless your actually looking for news, your not going to see it. At least as best as I can tell.

 

[CO skier]

Also, for all the Wyndham defenders, this all played out basically like the "worst case scenario" imagined by the skeptics - no notice till T-30 days, no e-mail notice to bunches of people (and I question a post on a news section of their website that I wonder if anyone actually reads as a "notice".), what communications have gone out to affected owners leave a lot of questions from the owners, and a sudden loss of locations to everyone else that isn't living on TUG.

The timeline should be no surprise to anyone who read the following, posted on July 11 in the "Wyndham is closing a number of legacy resorts" thread

If past is prologue, the vote to terminate the (Mountain Meadows) timeshare and the vote to convert the property to condos was noticed to Pagosa Mountain Meadows owners on November 16, 2024 and took place on December 4, 2024. The owners did not receive January, 2025 or subsequent points. It happened that fast.

6 weeks, not 6 months.

 

[comicbookman]

Since some people decided to pick up their toys and go home, I will try and summarize my understanding of "non-Wyndham association" and "Wyndham association" based on what seems to have been hashed out here. Perhaps just for my own sanity.

Wyndham association - 100% of the members (intervals) within the association are enrolled/converted (whatever you call it) in Club Wyndham and can use points. Every owner at the property can use points
Non-Wyndham Association - Less than 100% of the members (intervals) within the association are enrolled/converted to Club Wyndham. Some members can use points and some just have their deeded (unconverted) week.

Those being stated, I don't think these were considered in any way to determine which associations were selected for bankruptcy. The associations selected probably fall into both but more fall into the latter.

I would expect that for the "Non-Wyndham Associations" that it would be very unlikely for Wyndham to own many intervals. There would be less incentive for the HOA to turn over recovered intervals to Wyndham.

 

[dioxide45]

I would expect that for the "Non-Wyndham Associations" that it would be very unlikely for Wyndham to own many intervals. There would be less incentive for the HOA to turn over recovered intervals to Wyndham.

But we really still don't have a definition of what each are to really determine how they are different. It seems that some how, some way Wyndham obtained control of Vacation Break intervals. There are indeed Vacation Break intervals in CWA. Perhaps Certified Exit? Maybe foreclosures where the association had an agreement for Wyndham to buy the deeds? Based on the prior explanation, it was said that somehow Star Island Vacation Owners Association was a "Wyndham association" and Vacation Break wasn't, because, well, I don't know why. Perhaps 100% of the intervals at Star Island Vacation Owners Association are part of Club Wyndham? Maybe there are no week based owners there that don't have points? I understand this would be called unconverted weeks. I don't know if that is true. If we use that as the definition to differentiate the two, it would seem there are "Wyndham associations" outside Star Island going through the bankruptcy process.

My issue was that Vacation Break didn't go through the process because Wyndham didn't control a majority. The defense however from those that debated it, at least how I took it, is because Vacation Break is a "non-Wyndham association". I just don't see how Vacation Break and Star Island Vacation Owners Association are somehow fundamentally different other than member (ownership) control in the association.

I know there are properties that were developed by Wyndham Vacation Resorts, or a predecessor. I think that might be the case of Star Island Vacation Owners Association where Vacation Break was bought by Cendant. Is that the differentiating factor?

After all the teeth gnashing, perhaps it doesn't matter but I take issue with the terminology when it is being used loosely and in a way to somehow avoid the truth that the reason Vacation Break didn't file bankruptcy is because Wyndham doesn't control the majority. Are Vacation Break buildings somehow getting higher occupancy than those buildings that are part of Star Island Vacation Owners Association, I doubt it. Star Island was probably the second least desirable property in Orlando after OIRC. I don't think people making reservations really cared what association buildings they would be staying in.

 

[Floridaman76]

Wyndham doesn't own any of the intervals at the sections of the resorts i'm talking about. We have access to their units and their systems have reciprocal access to our inventory AT those resorts.

This is part of some agreement that was set up by Fairfield at these handful of resorts in the early days of the points system. That's how it was explained to me anyway.

I just remembered SeaWatch is like this too, there are units in the North Tower that Wyndham doesn't own, but we can be assigned to.

 

[dioxide45]

Wyndham doesn't own any of the intervals at the sections of the resorts i'm talking about. We have access to their units and their systems have reciprocal access to our inventory AT those resorts.

This is part of some agreement that was set up by Fairfield at these handful of resorts in the early days of the points system. That's how it was explained to me anyway.

I just remembered SeaWatch is like this too, there are units in the North Tower that Wyndham doesn't own, but we can be assigned to.

We stayed at SeaWatch back in March and I asked which units were Wyndham. There are some in north tower (01 and 02 stack + 18th and 19th floor), some in south (12th floor and up) and all the units in Villas 1, 2, and 3. Looking at the CWA POS, It looks like all the Club Wyndham units at SeaWatch is in CWA.

Now I suspect that SeaWatch is a "non-Wyndham HOA" since it is really a whole ownership condominium where Wyndham took control of many units through CWA. Wyndham will likely never control enough votes there to overthrow the entire ownership and the mess of whole ownership is probably more than they can chew.

 

[comicbookman]

But we really still don't have a definition of what each are to really determine how they are different. It seems that some how, some way Wyndham obtained control of Vacation Break intervals. There are indeed Vacation Break intervals in CWA. Perhaps Certified Exit? Maybe foreclosures where the association had an agreement for Wyndham to buy the deeds? Based on the prior explanation, it was said that somehow Star Island Vacation Owners Association was a "Wyndham association" and Vacation Break wasn't, because, well, I don't know why. Perhaps 100% of the intervals at Star Island Vacation Owners Association are part of Club Wyndham? Maybe there are no week based owners there that don't have points? I understand this would be called unconverted weeks. I don't know if that is true. If we use that as the definition to differentiate the two, it would seem there are "Wyndham associations" outside Star Island going through the bankruptcy process.

My issue was that Vacation Break didn't go through the process because Wyndham didn't control a majority. The defense however from those that debated it, at least how I took it, is because Vacation Break is a "non-Wyndham association". I just don't see how Vacation Break and Star Island Vacation Owners Association are somehow fundamentally different other than member (ownership) control in the association.

I know there are properties that were developed by Wyndham Vacation Resorts, or a predecessor. I think that might be the case of Star Island Vacation Owners Association where Vacation Break was bought by Cendant. Is that the differentiating factor?

After all the teeth gnashing, perhaps it doesn't matter but I take issue with the terminology when it is being used loosely and in a way to somehow avoid the truth that the reason Vacation Break didn't file bankruptcy is because Wyndham doesn't control the majority. Are Vacation Break buildings somehow getting higher occupancy than those buildings that are part of Star Island Vacation Owners Association, I doubt it. Star Island was probably the second least desirable property in Orlando after OIRC. I don't think people making reservations really cared what association buildings they would be staying in.

your whole tirade is meaningless. We don't see any of the current Blue green HOA's currently declaring Bankruptcy, is that because Wyndham doesn't own a majority? It is clear Wyndham is going this route to stem continued losses related to the HOA's involved. Why would it matter to Wyndham if an HOA in which they don't own much or anything in, stays or goes? Unless a majority of intervals are in the Wyndham system, why would Wyndham even care what happens with it? You are ascribing ill intent to a decision that makes itself. Also, your obsession with the terminology is odd and pretty much irrelevant to the point you seem to be trying to make, that Wyndham is somehow being evil here. I would say they are being smart. Clumsy and inefficient in how they are communicating, but not evil. (that is not to say that they don't do evil things, the sales dept. is evil enough all by itself)

 

[dioxide45]

They still own the assets, they just offset the MF costs, which is an operating expense. They aren't writing off anything. They are losing a liability on their balance sheet.

The actual property interest ownership is owned by the FairShare trust. And Wymdham wholly owns the FairShare trust.

When you "own" CWA, you don't own any real property, or even an interest in a UDI asset.

But I thought Fairshare Trust didn't actually own anything? It is just a trust setup to facilitate the overall program. There are no deeds conveyed to it. As for inventory, CWA inventory on the balance sheet is an asset not a liability. Perhaps there are maintenance fee costs that would offset the overall revenue, but the maintenance fees don't really have a direct impact on the value of the inventory on the books. The maintenance fees are a separate expense.

There was a cost to acquire that inventory and it does have some value sold at retail. Any unsold timeshare inventory is an asset on the books of the big timeshare companies.

 

[dioxide45]

your whole tirade is meaningless. We don't see any of the current Blue green HOA's currently declaring Bankruptcy, is that because Wyndham doesn't own a majority? It is clear Wyndham is going this route to stem continued losses related to the HOA's involved. Why would it matter to Wyndham if an HOA in which they don't own much or anything in, stays or goes? Unless a majority of intervals are in the Wyndham system, why would Wyndham even care what happens with it? You are ascribing ill intent to a decision that makes itself. Also, your obsession with the terminology is odd and pretty much irrelevant to the point you seem to be trying to make, that Wyndham is somehow being evil here. I would say they are being smart. Clumsy and inefficient in how they are communicating, but not evil. (that is not to say that they don't do evil things, the sales dept. is evil enough all by itself)

I'm not sure why you see it as some kind of tirade. Just trying to understand the terms people are using. If the terms don't matter, why are people using them?

I also didn't indicate any evil intent. That is you reading something into my posts based on your bias based on past discussion. I simply said Vacation Break didn't file bankruptcy because Wyndham didn't control the majority. Someone else was trying to defend Wyndham by explaining that wasn't the reason why. Thus the back and forth.

 

[comicbookman]

But I thought Fairshare Trust didn't actually own anything? It is just a trust setup to facilitate the overall program. There are no deeds conveyed to it. As for inventory, CWA inventory on the balance sheet is an asset not a liability. Perhaps there are maintenance fee costs that would offset the overall revenue, but the maintenance fees don't really have a direct impact on the value of the inventory on the books. The maintenance fees are a separate expense.

There was a cost to acquire that inventory and it does have some value sold at retail. Any unsold timeshare inventory is an asset on the books of the big timeshare companies.

Technically they are trading one asset for another. While the asset they are receiving in trade has little to no resale value, it does However, have the receivable of the eventual payout.

 

[Floridaman76]

We stayed at SeaWatch back in March and I asked which units were Wyndham. There are some in north tower (01 and 02 stack + 18th and 19th floor), some in south (12th floor and up) and all the units in Villas 1, 2, and 3. Looking at the CWA POS, It looks like all the Club Wyndham units at SeaWatch is in CWA.
View attachment 118817

Now I suspect that SeaWatch is a "non-Wyndham HOA" since it is really a whole ownership condominium where Wyndham took control of many units through CWA. Wyndham will likely never control enough votes there to overthrow the entire ownership and the mess of whole ownership is probably more than they can chew.

Wyndham owns/manages units in both towers, for sure. But there are units in the North tower I have stayed at that are not Wyndham owned/maintained units. They have different decor, no "blue cups", etc.

Like at Star Island (the VB units) or Sapphire Valley Diamond owned units at Fairway Forest.

 

[comicbookman]

I'm not sure why you see it as some kind of tirade. Just trying to understand the terms people are using. If the terms don't matter, why are people using them?

I also didn't indicate any evil intent. That is you reading something into my posts based on your bias based on past discussion. I simply said Vacation Break didn't file bankruptcy because Wyndham didn't control the majority. Someone else was trying to defend Wyndham by explaining that wasn't the reason why. Thus the back and forth.

Your tone clearly implies you think Wyndham is doing something very wrong. I said tirade because you appear to be focusing on minutia that is meaningless to the overall discussion. You try to make the same point over and over, that is kinda the definition of a tirade. As I said, any HOA that Wyndham doesn't have a large interest in is clearly not going to be involved in what is going on. This applies equally to the vacation break HOA as well as HOA's at blue green, Hilton and other systems. There is no reason Wyndham should waste time analyzing the viability of HOA's it does not have a large interest in, unless it is looking at acquiring a large interest in it. Simple as that. Not a hard concept and not worth pages of discussion.

 

[CO skier]

I said tirade because you appear to be focusing on minutia that is meaningless to the overall discussion.

+1,000 to that point.

 

[dioxide45]

Your tone clearly implies you think Wyndham is doing something very wrong. I said tirade because you appear to be focusing on minutia that is meaningless to the overall discussion.

You've never heard the term that you should never read tone in the written word? What you may see as minutia and meaningless may matter to me. That is just a difference of opinion.

 

[dioxide45]

Wyndham owns/manages units in both towers, for sure. But there are units in the North tower I have stayed at that are not Wyndham owned/maintained units. They have different decor, no "blue cups", etc.

Like at Star Island (the VB units) or Sapphire Valley Diamond owned units at Fairway Forest.

Are there other timeshare systems at SeaWatch?

 

[comicbookman]

You've never heard the term that you should never read tone in the written word? What you may see as minutia and meaningless may matter to me. That is just a difference of opinion.

No, I have not. Interesting way to waffle. You go out of your way to imply that Wyndham is doing something wrong (other than botching the communication part of this whole thing, which i think we all agree on). Now you claim that your tone should be ignored. I would suggest you learn to write in a neutral tone if you want to claim no tone.

EDIT: Just because it matters to you, does not make it not minutia. Also, you keep repeating yourself and ignoring anything that does not fit your narrative. The more people try to enlighten you or even answer your questions, the more you dive deeper into the minutia. I expect at this rate you will soon start arguing about the meaning of common words like "the" and "of".

 

[dioxide45]

No, I have not.

Then you should google it. It is well known. You can’t hear tone in the written word. It is certainly hard to get “evil” out of anything I’ve said. That seems to be a very big stretch on your part.

 

[schreff]

I guess now enough has already happened that even though they wanted to keep silent till everything was done, they realized Shawnee wouldn't complete this year and so feel the need to post something before people show up to shut down resorts. And they still might if they didn't notice the post the day before Thanksgiving. Or might not if Wyndham gets around to e-mailing them before they've left on their trip.

Also, for all the Wyndham defenders, this all played out basically like the "worst case scenario" imagined by the skeptics - no notice till T-30 days, no e-mail notice to bunches of people (and I question a post on a news section of their website that I wonder if anyone actually reads as a "notice".), what communications have gone out to affected owners leave a lot of questions from the owners, and a sudden loss of locations to everyone else that isn't living on TUG. Even our questioning of AIs shows that a huge percentage of the info is from TUG THREADS. This is pretty insane.

Agree, not only the " worst case scenario " imagined by the skeptics but perhaps the best case scenario for proof of " dolus malus " by Wyndham in history. Hopefully, this is not the beginning of the end. The complexities are well beyond the scope of just the Wyndham's iron clad contracts and sales shenanigans, "caveat emptor" to the 110th degree. I've never seen anything like it.

 

[Floridaman76]

Are there other timeshare systems at SeaWatch?

The Seawatch resort itself is a hotel/timeshare/private condo residence that Wyndham shares occupancy with. Not a system, or part of a larger system to my knowledge

 

[jp10558]

The timeline should be no surprise to anyone who read the following, posted on July 11 in the "Wyndham is closing a number of legacy resorts" thread



6 weeks, not 6 months.

I'm sorry, it's not a surprise to ME. But you seem to think the average owner (and CWS/CWA booker) should somehow (they don't know about TUG) telepathically or IDK via osmosis or divine revelation know this? That's who's surprised. And were it a Starbucks, or a store that'd be more than fine. When it's a TS that you book 9+ months out, that's pretty bad IMO. I can only hope that Wyndham has blocked off inventory and nearby locations (where possible) and can move at no cost to the same unit size people who didn't realize their Jan/Feb/Mar etc bookings at the affected resorts are going poof, and may not find out till the end of this month at best.