Any Guess

[ronparise]

It is completely understandable that someone who views Club Wyndham through the lens of profitability would view the situation in this manner.

Owners complained when the vacation they wanted was not available for them to book, but they could easily find it for rent. What you are missing is that they were not complaining about the money; they were complaining about the time. If the vacation the owners wanted was available for them to reserve through Club Wyndham, they would not need to go looking for their vacation somewhere else and find the vacation advertised for rent. They would not care if someone was renting an identical vacation for profit, because there was enough to go around.

What you do not seem to understand is the implied exclusivity offered by a vacation club. If a private golf club allowed members to book the best tee times and offer them for rent, it would be more like a public golf course than a private golf club. Where is the exclusivity, which was the point of forming the club?

What you are also missing is club members understand when another member beats them to a vacation or a tee time. It is one thing if the member makes personal use of the vacation time or the tee time; that is the whole purpose of the club. The objection is when the vacation time or tee time slot is used by non-club members -- for profit or not does not make any difference. A "few" non-owner vacations or tee times can be a Club member's privilege, if that is what the Club decides.

That is what Club Wyndham has decided with the Owner Priority Booking exclusive dates.

II think you are right about the money, but it wasnt about the time either. If all they wanted was the reservation, why didnt they just rent. The time was still available, just from another club member for cash, rather than from the club itself. You said it youself that one of the best feature of the worldmark system are the cash options Renting is a pretty good cash option. Why didnt those owners I beat out for a reservation rent from me? In many cases I rented for less than what their mf would be, If it wasnt about the money, and it wasnt about the time, what was it?

And regarding exclusivity.... The thing is, that there is no exclusivity. Anyone can buy into this club. , for next to nothing. I would guess in a private golf club, more is required for approval than just money and more money than just a buck.

Private clubs enforce their exclusivity by setting high prices and high standards for membership. and limiting the number of members. I dont have any experience with private golf clubs; my father was a public course guy, who would leave the house before dawn to be the first in line for tee off. Using your golf and tee time analogy I see Wyndham as more of a public course, than a private club.

and when you say this " What you are also missing is club members understand when another member beats them to a vacation or a tee time". What you are missing is that I was also a member/owner with all the rights that accrue to that status. If the average owner has something like 300,000 points I had every right to 100x the number of reservations as the average guy

Dont get me wrong, I get it .... The club through its manager can change the rules and change the way that they enforce those rules anytime and in any way they want. I couldnt do now what I did then, That doesnt make what I did wrong, when I did it,

Like I told Wyndham when they shut me down. Just tell me what you need me to do, Ill comply and I did,



You are right about one thing.. I did come look at this stuff as a way to make money. And I dont apologize for that.

 

[comicbookman]

So there we have it from the horse's mouth... they don't feel harassed.

So maybe now that one TUGGER can shut their trap about my "guest" status... if the owners of this site (which you are not) wish to end people being able to join for free, then I will at that time make a value decision about whether or not to becoming a paying member... until then, since you aren't an owner or moderator, you can go pound sand...

you seem to have a lot of anger to go with you perceived high moral ground.

 

[SmithOp]

you seem to have a lot of anger to go with you perceived high moral ground.

He's just venting from the other end of the horse as usual.

Sent from my Lenovo 10e using Tapatalk

 

[CO skier]

II think you are right about the money, but it wasnt about the time either. If all they wanted was the reservation, why didnt they just rent. The time was still available, just from another club member for cash, rather than from the club itself.

Now you are just being obtuse. The obvious answer is that owners do not want to pay maintenance fees for their vacations and then pay again to rent the vacations that they want but are not available to book through the Club.

You said it youself that one of the best feature of the worldmark system are the cash options

Wyndham has instituted certain Owner Priority dates in WorldMark when cash options are disallowed to preserve some exclusivity for the owners.

And regarding exclusivity.... The thing is, that there is no exclusivity. Anyone can buy into this club. , for next to nothing. I would guess in a private golf club, more is required for approval than just money and more money than just a buck.

Private clubs enforce their exclusivity by setting high prices and high standards for membership. and limiting the number of members.

Once again, you are letting your preoccupation with money get in the way of clear thinking. To access the exclusivity of a vacation club, some members pay 10s of thousands of dollars, others pay $1 and maybe get the first year's usage for free. Both get the same exclusive vacation club access as members of the Club that the general public (renters) does not. There are no "standards" for someone to become a Club Wyndham member.

and when you say this " What you are also missing is club members understand when another member beats them to a vacation or a tee time". What you are missing is that I was also a member/owner with all the rights that accrue to that status. If the average owner has something like 300,000 points I had every right to 100x the number of reservations as the average guy

Sure, your had the rights to 100x reservations for your own personal use. Notice the key phrase "... which such Member caused to be subjected to this Trust Agreement."

From the VOI Trust Documents "Member’s Membership in the Plan and is based upon the Property Interest (or Use Rights in such Property Interest) which such Member caused to be subjected to this Trust Agreement."

From the Members' Directory

"Everyone" (on TUG) knows you did not use those 100x reservations for your personal use. You used them to run a commercial rental business.

Dont get me wrong, I get it .... The club through its manager can change the rules and change the way that they enforce those rules anytime and in any way they want. I couldnt do now what I did then, That doesnt make what I did wrong, when I did it,

The rules (cited above) were the same 10 years ago as they are now. I am sure the owners who are having their accounts suspended now when ignoring the "Wyndham letter" feel the same way you do/did when your's and others accounts were suspended in 2016, with no re-instatement.

 

[ronparise]

Now you are just being obtuse. The obvious answer is that owners do not want to pay maintenance fees for their vacations and then pay again to rent the vacations that they want but are not available to book through the Club.


Wyndham has instituted certain Owner Priority dates in WorldMark when cash options are disallowed to preserve some exclusivity for the owners.


Once again, you are letting your preoccupation with money get in the way of clear thinking. To access the exclusivity of a vacation club, some members pay 10s of thousands of dollars, others pay $1 and maybe get the first year's usage for free. Both get the same exclusive vacation club access as members of the Club that the general public (renters) does not. There are no "standards" for someone to become a Club Wyndham member.


Sure, your had the rights to 100x reservations for your own personal use. Notice the key phrase "... which such Member caused to be subjected to this Trust Agreement."

From the VOI Trust Documents "Member’s Membership in the Plan and is based upon the Property Interest (or Use Rights in such Property Interest) which such Member caused to be subjected to this Trust Agreement."

From the Members' Directory

View attachment 65846
"Everyone" (on TUG) knows you did not use those 100x reservations for your personal use. You used them to run a commercial rental business.


The rules (cited above) were the same 10 years ago as they are now. I am sure the owners who are having their accounts suspended now when ignoring the "Wyndham letter" feel the same way you do/did when your's and others accounts were suspended in 2016, with no re-instatement.

 

[ronparise]

Now you are just being obtuse. The obvious answer is that owners do not want to pay maintenance fees for their vacations and then pay again to rent the vacations that they want but are not available to book through the Club.


Wyndham has instituted certain Owner Priority dates in WorldMark when cash options are disallowed to preserve some exclusivity for the owners.


Once again, you are letting your preoccupation with money get in the way of clear thinking. To access the exclusivity of a vacation club, some members pay 10s of thousands of dollars, others pay $1 and maybe get the first year's usage for free. Both get the same exclusive vacation club access as members of the Club that the general public (renters) does not. There are no "standards" for someone to become a Club Wyndham member.


Sure, your had the rights to 100x reservations for your own personal use. Notice the key phrase "... which such Member caused to be subjected to this Trust Agreement."

From the VOI Trust Documents "Member’s Membership in the Plan and is based upon the Property Interest (or Use Rights in such Property Interest) which such Member caused to be subjected to this Trust Agreement."

From the Members' Directory

View attachment 65846
"Everyone" (on TUG) knows you did not use those 100x reservations for your personal use. You used them to run a commercial rental business.


The rules (cited above) were the same 10 years ago as they are now. I am sure the owners who are having their accounts suspended now when ignoring the "Wyndham letter" feel the same way you do/did when your's and others accounts were suspended in 2016, with no re-instatement.

You dont have to put that line from the member directory in such large print. I know what it says and I know what it means, and I knew it from the beginning
At every opportunity I had, I challenged Wyndham to enforce it. but they didnt. There was one annual meeting I introduced myself to the new CEO...(the guy that replaced Franz Hanning), as a megarenter. He said..."you know we dont like you guys very much". At the same meeting I approached the head of the transfer dept. with an issue I was having getting several contracts transferred. I introduced myself, and she said " I know who you are" (with some distain, I thought) She took notes on m, Most of those miles were in interstates at over 80 mph. I knwy problem and fixed it the next week. .. My point is, yea, everyone on tug knew what I was doing, and so did Wyndham. Wyndham knew how many points I had, and Wyndham didnt much like me, and they continued to help me get more points, for more rentals


Dont be so sure you know how I felt when my account was suspended. Most people who know me would say I have no feelings. I knew from the beginning that that day would come, and it did,,, That was my thought, I didnt feel anything at all, except the dread of having to tell my wife that our income just went to zero. And the adrenaline rush as I set to work with wyndham and several other owners, to unwind this thing... And yea what started as a hobby business, developed into a moneymaker, .But I made more money the day I signed everything back to Wyndham than I did in the 5 years I was renting

Interestingly there was nothing in the agreement I had with Wyndham that mentioned renting, In fact we agreed that neither party did anything wrong

 

[CO skier]

You dont have to put that line from the member directory in such large print.

I just clicked on the page of the Club Wyndham Directory to make it a readable size, then cut and pasted.

 

[CO skier]

Dont be so sure you know how I felt when my account was suspended.

I was referring to this in this thread

I couldnt do now what I did then, That doesnt make what I did wrong, when I did it,

and this from 2016

I know I didnt do anything wrong and I want to make sure they agree and lift the suspension...

Well ... Wyndham never lifted the suspension.

 

[CO skier]

And yea what started as a hobby business, developed into a moneymaker, .But I made more money the day I signed everything back to Wyndham than I did in the 5 years I was renting

Interestingly there was nothing in the agreement I had with Wyndham that mentioned renting, In fact we agreed that neither party did anything wrong

On social media, anyone can create any narrative they want. In the case of the TUG Wyndham forum, it is without fear of contradiction from Wyndham.

 

[ronparise]

On social media, anyone can create any narrative they want. In the case of the TUG Wyndham forum, it is without fear of contradiction from Wyndham.

you calling me a liar, does not make it so

 

[ronparise]

I was referring to this in this thread


and this from 2016




Well ... Wyndham never lifted the suspension.

no they didnt lift the suspension, but they didnt say I did anything wrong either

 

[ronparise]

I was referring to this in this thread


and this from 2016




Well ... Wyndham never lifted the suspension.

Do you have all my past posts indexed

 

[A.Win]

It is completely understandable that someone who views Club Wyndham through the lens of profitability would view the situation in this manner.

Owners complained when the vacation they wanted was not available for them to book, but they could easily find it for rent. What you are missing is that they were not complaining about the money; they were complaining about the time. If the vacation the owners wanted was available for them to reserve through Club Wyndham, they would not need to go looking for their vacation somewhere else and find the vacation advertised for rent. They would not care if someone was renting an identical vacation for profit, because there was enough to go around.

What you do not seem to understand is the implied exclusivity offered by a vacation club. If a private golf club allowed members to book the best tee times and offer them for rent, it would be more like a public golf course than a private golf club. Where is the exclusivity, which was the point of forming the club?

What you are also missing is club members understand when another member beats them to a vacation or a tee time. It is one thing if the member makes personal use of the vacation time or the tee time; that is the whole purpose of the club. The objection is when the vacation time or tee time slot is used by non-club members -- for profit or not does not make any difference. A "few" non-owner vacations or tee times can be a Club member's privilege, if that is what the Club decides.

That is what Club Wyndham has decided with the Owner Priority Booking exclusive dates.

I am a renter and I got "the letter". The problem is that I did not rent more than the number of guest certificates given to me. More importantly, I was mostly renting unwanted time. I almost always got a discount at less popular resorts outside of peak season. I believe my VIP benefits were given to me to use rooms that might otherwise be vacant. Yet Wyndham is not smart enough to see the difference, and they gave me "the letter" anyhow. I have very few peak season reservations, yet I feel like I am a second class member at Wyndham now. I am still frustrated that they won't define commercial use for those of us that have more points than we need. The good news is that I am never invited to attend their lame "owner updates".

 

[WManning]

I am a renter and I got "the letter". The problem is that I did not rent more than the number of guest certificates given to me. More importantly, I was mostly renting unwanted time. I almost always got a discount at less popular resorts outside of peak season. I believe my VIP benefits were given to me to use rooms that might otherwise be vacant. Yet Wyndham is not smart enough to see the difference, and they gave me "the letter" anyhow. I have very few peak season reservations, yet I feel like I am a second class member at Wyndham now. I am still frustrated that they won't define commercial use for those of us that have more points than we need. The good news is that I am never invited to attend their lame "owner updates".

Think of it as a gift from Wyndham never to be invited!

 

[CO skier]

Do you have all my past posts indexed

No, but the TUG website does. "Search" (with the magnifying glass outline) is a wonderful and effective tool.

In this particular case, I used the feature to search for the term "wrong". I limited the search to "Posted By" and "This Forum" (Club Wyndham Plus). Then I looked at your posts in 2016. The whole process took less than 60 seconds.

Maybe you should try searching your own historical posts, before posting.

 

[CO skier]

On social media, anyone can create any narrative they want. In the case of the TUG Wyndham forum, it is without fear of contradiction from Wyndham.

you calling me a liar, does not make it so

Down boy!

I was simply offering two highly material facts for consideration in the court of public opinion.

 

[chapjim]

Down boy!

I was simply offering two highly material facts for consideration in the court of public opinion.

I think we've heard enough of the two of you bickering.

 

[CO skier]

I think we've heard enough of the two of you bickering.

I'm game, but I doubt you will ever convince the other guy to stop posting about his defunct rental business experiences from 6 years ago.

 

[ski_sierra]

Whats the thinking on the value of this; 1,000,000 points at Oceanside Pier, and is the stated mf ($5/1000) close

Someone paid $7k for it, and I think they are going to get their money's worth. They could book four weeks here in the summer.

I just watched a video by @Clifbell of a unit at this resort. I think this resort is in a great location, and I'd love to stay here in the future when I enroll my daughter in a surfing camp that takes place within walking distance of this resort.

 

[chapjim]

I'm game, but I doubt you will ever convince the other guy to stop posting about his defunct rental business experiences from 6 years ago.

Give it a try.

 

[pagosajim]

I'm game, but I doubt you will ever convince the other guy to stop posting about his defunct rental business experiences from 6 years ago.

I think you're in the vast minority on this one. Let it go...

 

[SueDonJ]

The thing with mega renters, is that many TUG members have been mega renters but remain silent because of the vitriol here on TUG by about 4 members and guests. I keep wondering which of you are Wyndham higher-ups who are just trying to demonize mega renters to get the concensus on TUG against us.

Ironically, this has been a huge change in attitude on TUG. There were some really nice people who helped us 16 years ago on TUG with our decision to convert our Bali Hai weeks and gave advice right here in the open forums. But that has been quashed by Wyndham and the few cheerleaders.

Don't forget that you could become the target of these ever-changing rules that Wyndham puts into place.

Wyndham was always the cheapest timeshare on the market, and now it's below $0 for value. Wyndham did that. So what you own is now worthless, unless you own developer and have low MF's and take advantage of the discounts, which we will do, if we keep anything.

Almost from the day I found TUG I've had the opinion that every timeshare developer/manager should be reading it regularly - why wouldn't they when it's free, it offers anonymity, and it's the best timeshare forum/focus group to be found on the internet! As a TUGger I actually wish more of the companies would participate, officially, and on a more consistent basis.

As a moderator I know there are several Marriott employees who participate in the Marriott forum, not as official voices of the company(ies) but in a couple cases as timeshare owners and in a few others as required reading for their positions. They're not hurting anyone and they don't contribute misinformation meant to benefit the company so I leave them alone to do their thing. I've also gained a few Marriott contacts who might verify or flesh out things that are posted here - I email them and they decide on their terms what questions they might answer and when/if they'll grant permission for me to post their official statements - it hasn't happened often and I don't abuse the contacts for my personal use, and they're good to keep in the background for occasional-but-seldom issues. I will though, and have, out Marriott employees who come here spouting misinformation in an unofficial capacity - I don't rat them out to Marriott but I post my suspicion/certainty about them being moles so that other TUGgers can decide for themselves whether they want to engage. Usually within a day or two of them being outed they disappear anyway, and I think that's a result of the Marriott background readers recognizing them as rogue employees as easily as regular TUG readers recognize them.

What I've never understood is why anyone who posts contrary to the majority TUG opinions or anyone who posts the slightest support/understanding of the timeshare companies' positions is automatically accused of being an employee/mole. If that's all it takes, Marriott owes me back pay for all the support I've given them for all the years I've been on TUG.

 

[bnoble]

You make some great points, but I'd probably disagree with this bit:

it's the best timeshare [...] focus group to be found on the internet!

I am quite sure that TUGgers are not representative of the average timeshare owner, if only because we are a self-selecting group. If someone wanted to know how the typical current or prospective owner felt about something, TUG is as likely to lead them in the wrong direction.

 

[rickandcindy23]

Almost from the day I found TUG I've had the opinion that every timeshare developer/manager should be reading it regularly - why wouldn't they when it's free, it offers anonymity, and it's the best timeshare forum/focus group to be found on the internet! As a TUGger I actually wish more of the companies would participate, officially, and on a more consistent basis.

As a moderator I know there are several Marriott employees who participate in the Marriott forum, not as official voices of the company(ies) but in a couple cases as timeshare owners and in a few others as required reading for their positions. They're not hurting anyone and they don't contribute misinformation meant to benefit the company so I leave them alone to do their thing. I've also gained a few Marriott contacts who might verify or flesh out things that are posted here - I email them and they decide on their terms what questions they might answer and when/if they'll grant permission for me to post their official statements - it hasn't happened often and I don't abuse the contacts for my personal use, and they're good to keep in the background for occasional-but-seldom issues. I will though, and have, out Marriott employees who come here spouting misinformation in an unofficial capacity - I don't rat them out to Marriott but I post my suspicion/certainty about them being moles so that other TUGgers can decide for themselves whether they want to engage. Usually within a day or two of them being outed they disappear anyway, and I think that's a result of the Marriott background readers recognizing them as rogue employees as easily as regular TUG readers recognize them.

What I've never understood is why anyone who posts contrary to the majority TUG opinions or anyone who posts the slightest support/understanding of the timeshare companies' positions is automatically accused of being an employee/mole. If that's all it takes, Marriott owes me back pay for all the support I've given them for all the years I've been on TUG.

Wyndham's own website has a disclosure that is very revealing in how it wants to turn owners against anyone who rents:

TIMESHARE OWNER PRIORITY RESERVATIONS
Guest reservations are limited during peak travel times. Before you book a vacation for a guest, review the dates and information on Timeshare Owner Priority Reservations. Due to the ongoing pandemic, additional inventory may be released for guest usage.

 

[SueDonJ]

Wyndham's own website has a disclosure that is very revealing in how it wants to turn owners against anyone who rents:

TIMESHARE OWNER PRIORITY RESERVATIONS
Guest reservations are limited during peak travel times. Before you book a vacation for a guest, review the dates and information on Timeshare Owner Priority Reservations. Due to the ongoing pandemic, additional inventory may be released for guest usage.

I don't see any insult or harm intended in that basic statement. In fact, I think it's good that Wyndham is being transparent in boldly stating on the website that there's good reason to be aware of the recent changes that impact owner rentals.

Admittedly I don't know Wyndham, only what I've been able to understand from reading TUG. But as a Marriott owner who recognizes that our right to rent our intervals is expressly stated in the governing docs, I wish that Marriott would selectively enforce the "commercial activity" prohibition that's also in the governing docs. It's very vaguely worded, intentionally, and they have the right to enforce it in some cases while not enforcing it in others. Even knowing that as a recent owner/renter such an enforcement might negatively impact me, I still would prefer enforcement that puts limitations on the largest mega-renter businesses.

But that doesn't mean that I hate all the TUGgers who have rental businesses - in fact I use one of them to rent my Marriotts! It just means that I simply want owners who intend to personally use their ownerships for themselves or their direct family members to be prioritized over owners who rent to the public, and I'm in favor of Marriott taking whatever legal steps they can to make that happen.