Final Straw- Selling our Marriott/Vistana Timeshares

[Steve Fatula]

That is one of many factors that will cause MF increases, correct. Then you have increased cleaning costs, staff for cleanings, staff for enforcing social distancing, etc. etc. etc.

As far as inventory goes, due to increased time and requirements on cleaning, Branson (as one example) does not have anywhere near all inventory even open, <50% is what they told me could be booked. There are some requirements there they were alluding to but few details given. I believe a unit may have to stay vacant for some period of time. Therefore, inventory is actually much lower.

I stupidly thought it would be great to go there the day it re-opened for new bookings. I was mistaken. Due to units being vacant for about 3 months, anyone who has owned a vacant house should know better (I have but did not think of it!). There were a number of issues such as AC not working that took a few days to work out. Vacant properties tend to decay with no usage, often faster than if used.

 

[Mroze]

What also hasn't been factored in here is the deluge of deedbacks, giveaway sales via ROFR, and defaults that will hit when owners get their MF Bill's. That will create plenty of available inventory similar to the OP.

Excellent point.
More freebies today will result in higher MF down the road, in turn resulting in more defaults.

 

[CalGalTraveler]

@MICROZE The cost of the freebies and incentives to stay will pale in comparison to owners who lost their job or disenfranchised owners like the OP who will walk. Can't do much about the former but can do something about the latter.

 

[Dean]

@MICROZE The cost of the freebies and incentives to stay will pale in comparison to owners who lost their job or disenfranchised owners like the OP who will walk.

Let me get to the core issue. Why would one think they are entitled to freebies? That's what I don't truly understand and I'm sure I never will because my mind doesn't work that way.

 

[Steve Fatula]

@MICROZE The cost of the freebies and incentives to stay will pale in comparison to owners who lost their job or disenfranchised owners like the OP who will walk. Can't do much about the former but can do something about the latter.

Do you actually own MVCI? If I recall, you didn't a few years back, though you may have purchased recently. Or, I could be way off of course.

Obviously someone who lost their job will likely walk anyway. I seriously doubt there will be a deluge of disenfranchised owners like the OP, that is quite a stretch! Broke owners for sure.

 

[CalGalTraveler]

@steve_Fatula Why are you making personal attacks just because someone disagrees with you? That is against TUG rules.

Let's stick to attacking the topic not the people. We all bring different perspectives which add value.

 

[Steve Fatula]

I did not mean to make any personal attacks, if I did so, can you point it out? I will change it if it really is.

My issue here is similar to what the mod said earlier in this thread (post #30) about another poster. In reviewing and remembering your posts, you have a ton of posts in the MVCI forums almost always negative, and pointing out how great your owned systems are. I don't understand why? Near as I can tell, you own HGVC and Vistana, not MVCI. This comes mainly from this post:

Shouldn’t the “skim” be a dead issue now?

NO question HGVC is a more user-friendly, cost effective overall system than Marriott - and where locations are comparable - we'll use HGVC over MVC points. We bought HGVC for access to the Big Island, and secondarily, to Oahu and their other locations. With the HGVC locations, it's unlikely...

tugbbs.com

For me, it's bothersome that people who don't even own are continually posting information for something they may not fully understand I guess. So, I was asking if you owned MVCI, and I found a post in 2019 that said you owned only those 2 systems. I don't enjoy non owners posting complaints, and that's been going on a lot since Vistana came in. Perhaps that is a bad attitude, but that's the way I feel. I have whined to at least one mod previously about this, months ago (not about you, in general).

If I am wrong, I apologize, but that's my motive. The trend has really really got to me this past 6 months.

 

[Ken555]

I did not mean to make any personal attacks, if I did so, can you point it out? I will change it if it really is.

My issue here is similar to what the mod said earlier in this thread about another poster. In reviewing your posts, you have a ton of posts in the MVCI forums almost always negative, and pointing out how great your owned systems are. I don't understand why? Near as I can tell, you own HGVC and Vistana, not MVCI. This comes mainly from this post:

Shouldn’t the “skim” be a dead issue now?

NO question HGVC is a more user-friendly, cost effective overall system than Marriott - and where locations are comparable - we'll use HGVC over MVC points. We bought HGVC for access to the Big Island, and secondarily, to Oahu and their other locations. With the HGVC locations, it's unlikely...

tugbbs.com

For me, it's bothersome that people who don't even own are continually posting information for something they may not fully understand I guess. So, I was asking if you owned MVCI, and I found a post in 2019 that said you owned only those 2 systems. I don't enjoy non owners posting complaints, and that's been going on a lot since Vistana came in. Perhaps that is a bad attitude, but that's the way I feel. I have whined to at least one mod previously about this, months ago (not about you, in general).

If I am wrong, I apologize, but that's my motive. The trend has really really got to me this past 6 months.

I get your point, and I’m sure others do, as well. Still, it’s a deflection from the issue. You were doing so well before you started going after the poster. Stick to the issue.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Steve Fatula]

I get your point, and I’m sure others do, as well. Still, it’s a deflection from the issue. You were doing so well before you started going after the poster. Stick to the issue.

Can you tell me where I did so? Genuinely and sincerely want to know. It was not my intent at all to (knowingly) do so. Thank you in advance.

My intent is not to make *any* personal attacks. My intent is when I disagree with something someone has said, I will often post what I think as well. Doesn't make me right.

I should note in the general section of Tug, I often like a lot of what CalGalTraveler has to say. But that's deflecting too, but wanted to say that anyway. (hoping someone points out the error of my ways so I can understand).

 

[Ken555]

Can you tell me where I did so? Genuinely and sincerely want to know. It was not my intent at all to (knowingly) do so. Thank you in advance.

You asked multiple times re ownership.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Steve Fatula]

I don't see that as personal, if I am wrong (and apparently I am in the eyes of the poster), I definitely and humbly apologize.

 

[csalter2]

You asked multiple times re ownership.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

‘That is not a personal attack.

 

[Steve Fatula]

‘That is not a personal attack.

I (obviously) agree, however, if someone feels that I have attacked them, I want them to know I did not mean it that way and had I have known my post would be taken that way, I would not have done so. My attitude over these sorts of things has grown much worse these past 6 months (week by week), and, I think it comes across in some posts. I am liking TUG less and less over what I have stated earlier. I think I need a break from TUG for a while in the hopes things change over time.

 

[csalter2]

What you are describing here is the exact definition of zero-sum game.

My point is that MVC has plenty of levers at their control to avoid a zero-sum game. MVC now owns II so can change rules. They can do whatever they want. MVC owns separate inventory that they rent or use for promotional packages or received from ROFR. They have new Vistana resorts at Nanea and Kauai which are not sold out. They could temporarily lease more space from other timeshares...many options so no need to feel sorry for them.

To compare, I have 4 years to use my 2019 HGV banked points (2yrs HGV, 2 yrs RCI in which I can trade back into HGVC or other.) That's plenty of cushion to absorb with little impact to owners.

I have read your statements of what MVC is not doing compared to HGVC. However, maybe HGVC should be taking some lessons from Marriott. Being a Diamond Resorts owner as well, I know HGVC owners were most concerned about being bought by Diamond Resorts. That has not been a concern for Marriott owners. As you can see, many of the Marriott owners feel happy about the consideration they have been offered. Some don’t really care about what other timeshare companies are doing. If one is poor and wants to be rich, he’s not going to look at another poor man to model. He’s more than likely going to model a rich man. So in that same vain, I certainly don’t want Marriott modeling after HGVC because with them possibly being on the verge of being gobbled up by another company, they are not a beacon of solvency. Perhaps HGVC should be taking a stronger look at Marriott.

 

[Mroze]

You asked multiple times re ownership.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Oh Wow!

Although I have owned my TS for 10+ years, I am a rookie on TUG and have a lot to learn.
Good to know that seeking to find out what someone owns is a "Personal Attack".

 

[Ken555]

Oh Wow!

Although I have owned my TS for 10+ years, I am a rookie on TUG and have a lot to learn.
Good to know that seeking to find out what someone owns is a "Personal Attack".

Sarcastic much?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Mroze]

Sarcastic much?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Apologies if you considered my comment as "sarcasm".
A lot to learn. Touché.

 

[Ken555]

‘That is not a personal attack.

Not sure why I contributed my thoughts since I should have known the only responses would dispute my opinion on this issue. Steve asked at least three times if the earlier poster owned Marriott, and then proceeded to go into detail as to her previous post(s) on another thread to substantiate his belief of her ownership. He spent time on this. On just to find out if someone contributing to this thread owned Marriott. Yeah, it may not be an attack but it’s definitely on the way to discredit her posts on the subject of this thread simply because she may not own Marriott. That’s not very congenial, especially when the poster has significant experience with timeshares and understands the underlying issues being discussed. I suppose I should be grateful I wasn’t similarly attacked since I also don’t own Marriott. Perhaps we should all simply try to be more inclusive, eh?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Ken555]

Apologies if you considered my comment as "sarcasm".
A lot to learn. Touché.

No worries. This isn’t a normal TUG thread.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Steve Fatula]

Not sure why I contributed my thoughts since I should have known the only responses would dispute my opinion on this issue. Steve asked at least three times if the earlier poster owned Marriott, and then proceeded to go into detail as to her previous post(s) on another thread to substantiate his belief of her ownership. He spent time on this. On just to find out if someone contributing to this thread owned Marriott. Yeah, it may not be an attack but it’s definitely on the way to discredit her posts on the subject of this thread simply because she may not own Marriott. That’s not very congenial, especially when the poster has significant experience with timeshares and understands the underlying issues being discussed. I suppose I should be grateful I wasn’t similarly attacked since I also don’t own Marriott. Perhaps we should all simply try to be more inclusive, eh?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Ok now, let me set that record straight as you are posting on something you know nothing about here. But I won't do so publicly as I don't want to cause more harm. I will Dm you.

 

[Ken555]

Ok now, let me set that record straight as you are posting on something you know nothing about here. But I won't do so publicly as I don't want to cause more harm. I will Dm you.

If so, I apologize. However, from what I read you inquired three times re her ownership when your question wasn’t answered and you researched her ownership, so this obviously is important to you. Not sure what I missed but happy to take it off line. I have no interest here other than to see us all be more inclusive and you were posting comments about non-Marriott owners shouldn’t be posting here, etc... (which, by the way, is curious given the thread title).


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Steve Fatula]

If so, I apologize. However, from what I read you inquired three times re her ownership when your question wasn’t answered and you researched her ownership, so this obviously is important to you. Not sure what I missed but happy to take it off line. I have no interest here other than to see us all be more inclusive and you were posting comments about non-Marriott owners shouldn’t be posting here, etc... (which, by the way, is curious given the thread title).


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Not necessary to apologize to me. Sending DM to explain.

 

[ski_sierra]

I do feel that it is the responsibility of individual owners to take action about their vacation in a timely manner and protect their vacation by moving/depositing their week. Not sure if Marriott has informed people about their options before the 60-day deadline. That doesn't cost much.

My 2 cents. If you own and live in a condo and it is rendered uninhabitable by no fault of the management company or HOA are they responsible for your lodging. Why is Marriott responsible because government agencies restrict travel? Any little thing they do is above and beyond what is required. If a unit sits unoccupied for weeks or months and they provide compensation to owners someone down the line pays. Who is that?

TUGgers like to throw out a comparison with a wholly-owned condo when it comes to the risk of usage. When people complain about MFs on TS weeks being too high compared to wholly-owned condos, TUGgers quickly point out the differences between wholly-owned condos and timeshares. The HOAs are controlled by Marriott and they also manipulate utilize the system to their own benefit, unlike many other HOAs for fully owned condos. So no wonder people expect more from Marriott. As a relatively new MVC owner, I don't understand the MVC system as well as @Steve Fatula but I do feel like Marriott should have come up with some other creative ways of appeasing these owners. Note that I did not lose anything significant because of corona restrictions so I am not advocating that MVC should do more because I stand to gain from it in any way.

II ACs are given out for free so they are worth exactly zero IMO. Yes, some people turn them into wonderful vacations but an owner who did not deposit their week > 60 days out isn't going to be the one doing that. Most likely such owners have many ACs already in their II account if they have one. If they don't have an II account, it's probably not even worth setting up an II account for.

Marriott could have given access to unbooked inventory within a certain number of days of check-in in future years instead of II AC. I read somewhere that Marriott grabs unbooked inventory within a certain date of check-in to rent out. Perhaps give owners a shot at that inventory before using it themselves? I feel MVC chose the easy way. I know they are not obligated to work harder as they are not responsible for the travel restrictions of the corona crisis. But a more empathetic response from MVC would have been nice to read about and would win the hearts of many owners. HGVC has done that. Even though I'm going to be a loser in the next few years in HGVC due to too many club points chasing limited inventory, I feel better about HGVC that I do about MVC.

 

[bizaro86]

IMO it's irrelevant what one company did compared to another as long as they all followed the rules and laws in place. I expect owners to shoulder the risks they signed up for and MVC to follow the rules in place and the contract. If they can do more, that's OK but it's unreasonable to expect them to. They've already done a lot more than that. What happens with sales does not affect those realities. I'm sure sales will suffer no matter what even if they gave freebies to everyone just with the realities of the situations the next couple of years but IMO that's irrelevant to us as members/owners. It may be applicable for stockholders but that's another thread.

That's true to a point. However, I think when every other hotel branded timeshare company offers more to their owners than MVC during times of crisis (which is consistently true in every crisis, imo) then it is relevant to compare them. Especially as many people will buy new more timeshares, or sell and buy something different. Tug is a resource for researching timeshare purchases (hopefully resale!). I think crisis response is a valid consumer consideration, and MVC's competitors all have a track record of offering more to their customers in times of crisis than MVC.

Does MVC follow the law/agreements in place? I think generally yes. Do they bend over backwards to make sure customers are getting the most value they can in a crisis? Not compared to their competitors. Seems relevant to me...

 

[ski_sierra]

I also feel MVC points owners have done better than the weeks owners. And perhaps that was intentional so as to show the value of points system or penalize those pesky weeks owners who haven't bought from MVC or spent $$$$ for enrollment.

I recommend checking out HGVC to people like the OP who are not happy with Marriott.