Marriott Aruba Ocean Club Owners Being Ripped Off By Marriott - READ IF AN OWNER

[ecwinch]

Are the fees going up next year? Corey, the GM, told me they'd go down next year. He said there was a certain 70 dollars or so that was definitely going away (don't recall why).

Modo's posts are made in jest. I do not believe that any 2010 m/f information for MVCI resorts has been released this early in the year.

 

[billymach4]

OK. Everyone ready?

As you all know,many owners and guests of Marriot internationally,that includes people like Eric,Sue, and myself included(sticking to FACTS)have been absconding Marriot pens.
The cost internationally has put a severe dent in their finances.
Inorder to improve their balance sheets,they have chosen the path to manufacture their own pens.
So,the resort at the AOC will be converted to a pen manufacturing facility.
Look at the facts!

It's true.

They will employ the local Aruban labor force to manufacture pens, pads, shampoo etc. These items will then be sold to the other Marriott resorts worldwide. I have confirmed this on Snopes. I believe the profit from this venture will solve the financial stress that has burdened AOC owners.

 

[vacationmama]

It seems to me that by the time the concerned group of AOC owners is done, the Ocean Club that we all have loved will be in such disarray and have such a bad name from all the controversy that no one will go there, want to buy there and the Marriott will give it up as well for management. Then we can all say thank you to this group for devaluing what we all bought to the point that they are as worthless as many stocks have become.

 

[modoaruba]

It seems to me that by the time the concerned group of AOC owners is done, the Ocean Club that we all have loved will be in such disarray and have such a bad name from all the controversy that no one will go there, want to buy there and the Marriott will give it up as well for management. Then we can all say thank you to this group for devaluing what we all bought to the point that they are as worthless as many stocks have become.

Don't throw your deed into the fire yet.
Facts to consider:

Majority of owners have no clue as to all of this.
Financial times of today make any little unpleasantness a fiasco psychologically.
We have a very beautiful resort in one of the world's greatest location.
As much as Marriott gets dissed here,they still have a world renowned respectable name.(price of fame).
Even though I am one of those who was against remodeling at this time,we will have an even more beautiful resort.
Hang in there,keep the faith--I for one am NOT selling.

 

[ecwinch]

It seems to me that by the time the concerned group of AOC owners is done, the Ocean Club that we all have loved will be in such disarray and have such a bad name from all the controversy that no one will go there, want to buy there and the Marriott will give it up as well for management. Then we can all say thank you to this group for devaluing what we all bought to the point that they are as worthless as many stocks have become.

Ditto to all that Modo said. All this fuss has very little impact on the value of your timeshare. If your value has dropped, that is more due to the overall economy and the large assessments that are due. Those factors are creating more people selling, so price naturally goes down when supply increases. And you have the impact of MVCI building a mega-resort right next door, so buyers will naturally gravitate to the bright new resort.

And I think we are past the point that MVCI will give up management of the resort. If a hostile Board of Directors is seated then you have a real risk of that happening, but for the time being that threat has passed.

Ride out this storm, and in 2-3 years, things will look better.

You have a better location, and your resort is far less crowded than the Surf Club. Things will "return to the mean" over time.

Though it might be more appropriate for one the crusaders - like Mark - to respond to your concerns. Though maybe you should state emphatically that you own there first. They like to know that stuff.

 

[Luckybee]

The controversy wasnt created by the significant numbers of owners who are concerned with the MOC .It was created by Marriott and the actions taken by the board.
Although I am not involved in the specific "concerned owners group" I am very much a concerned owner, although my status as owner may very well change depending on the outcome of what takes place. From the emails and info I've received as to where I suspect this is going I would be very surprised if this "storm" will blow over quickly. I am also quite optimistic that another board will be seated , but rather than the "hostile " board we have now, this would be a board "receptive and not hostile " to the owners as opposed to placing the interests of the management company ahead of those who own the resort.

 

[Dean]

The controversy wasnt created by the significant numbers of owners who are concerned with the MOC .It was created by Marriott and the actions taken by the board.

That would be a matter of opinion wouldn't it. I would say the controversy was created directly by one member of the BOD and a handful of owners in response to the SA and maint fees and their judgement of the appropriateness (or lack of) of the fees being passed on to owners rather than covered by Marriott, who agreed to cover roughly half of them anyway. The controversy itself was not created by Marriott, the BOD or the resort. It was created by a handful of people in response to actions they perceived as inappropriate. Time will hopefully answer the question as to whether they were accurate in their judgement of appropriateness.

 

[ecwinch]

The controversy wasnt created by the significant numbers of owners who are concerned with the MOC .It was created by Marriott and the actions taken by the board.
Although I am not involved in the specific "concerned owners group" I am very much a concerned owner, although my status as owner may very well change depending on the outcome of what takes place. From the emails and info I've received as to where I suspect this is going I would be very surprised if this "storm" will blow over quickly. I am also quite optimistic that another board will be seated , but rather than the "hostile " board we have now, this would be a board "receptive and not hostile " to the owners as opposed to placing the interests of the management company ahead of those who own the resort.

Typically the "cause" is attributed to the moving party. When a car runs into a brick wall, we do not say the wall hit the car.

In this case the actions of the MVCI and the AOC caused the "concerned owners group" to take certain actions that created the situation.

Without the actions of the "concerned owners group" this situation would not exist. They are moving party in this situation. The party that initiates the action.

And thanks for the update that the BoD will be replaced. That will allay the concerns entirely.

And while I can understand that you might possess information that the BoD will be removed, what information could you possible possess that allows you know the viewpoint of the new BoD?

Don't you need to have elections when the current BoD is removed? Is the outcome of that election pre-ordained?

Is this as credible as the reports that the special meeting was about to be called? Are the facts as concrete as the last time? Are you sure the lawyer put a stamp on the demand letter, or overlooked some essential requirement that will doom the effort?

 

[Luckybee]

And thanks for the update that the BoD will be replaced. That will allay the concerns entirely.

And while I can understand that you might possess information that the BoD will be removed, what information could you possible possess that allows you know the viewpoint of the new BoD?

Don't you need to have elections when the current BoD is removed? Is the outcome of that election pre-ordained?

Is this as credible as the reports that the special meeting was about to be called? Are the facts as concrete as the last time? Are you sure the lawyer put a stamp on the demand letter, or overlooked some essential requirement that will doom the effort?

Perhaps you didnt read my message but I am not going to sit back while you place your sarcastic spin, and attempt to attribute to me something I did not say. My exact words were "I am also quite optimistic that another board will be seated ,but rather than the "hostile " board we have now, this would be a board "receptive and not hostile " to the owners as opposed to placing the interests of the management company ahead of those who own the resort ".
Let me provide you with a definition of the word optimistic. Merriam Webster or Wilkepdia :
" an inclination to put the most favorable construction upon actions and events or to anticipate the best possible outcome ".
I did not say the board WOULD be replaced. I said I was quite OPTIMISTIC that they would. It is my optimism that has me believeing that if the current board is ousted a more owner focused board would be in place. After all it couldnt be less owner focused than it is now. In other words anything would be an improvement. I have no idea who would even run if elections were held. But the beauty is that at least qualified candidates may have the opportunity to do so without the current board automatically deciding who could be placed for nomination.
I have no idea whether the lawyers efforts will fail first time around or not, as I said I am not involved in the specific "concerned owners group" (perhaps something else you missed in my post) but I suspect that those involved are not going to give up as easily as the non owners would like. So please when you decide to spin do so by at least reading the post first

 

[ecwinch]

Perhaps you didnt read my message but I am not going to sit back while you place your sarcastic spin, and attempt to attribute to me something I did not say. My exact words were "I am also quite optimistic that another board will be seated ,but rather than the "hostile " board we have now, this would be a board "receptive and not hostile " to the owners as opposed to placing the interests of the management company ahead of those who own the resort ".
Let me provide you with a definition of the word optimistic. Merriam Webster or Wilkepdia :
" an inclination to put the most favorable construction upon actions and events or to anticipate the best possible outcome ".
I did not say the board WOULD be replaced. I said I was quite OPTIMISTIC that they would. It is my optimism that has me believeing that if the current board is ousted a more owner focused board would be in place. After all it couldnt be less owner focused than it is now. In other words anything would be an improvement. I have no idea who would even run if elections were held. But the beauty is that at least qualified candidates may have the opportunity to do so without the current board automatically deciding who could be placed for nomination.
I have no idea whether the lawyers efforts will fail first time around or not, as I said I am not involved in the specific "concerned owners group" (perhaps something else you missed in my post) but I suspect that those involved are not going to give up as easily as the non owners would like. So please when you decide to spin do so by at least reading the post first

No, I read your post. See you can easily tell that, because the questions I asked were of things that you said in your post, and I was asking follow-up questions about. The fact that the follow-up question is about your points is a tip that I might have read your post.

And see how my follow-up is in the form of a question, rather than "I am glad to hear that the election of the directors to replace the existing board has already been decided without an owner election.".

Because as I now understand it, your original post was just to convey the optimism that you felt "from the emails and info I've received".

 

[Luckybee]

Obviously I was confused. You see I assumed you hadnt read it since you were attributing things to me that I didnt say I didnt realize it was just a comprehension issue !

 

[ecwinch]

Obviously I was confused. You see I assumed you hadnt read it since you were attributing things to me that I didnt say I didnt realize it was just a comprehension issue !

No problem. I understand that you were just pinch-hitting for Mark. Perhaps he will chime to answer the owners question.

 

[lovearuba]

Mark

No problem. I understand that you were just pinch-hitting for Mark. Perhaps he will chime to answer the owners question.

Marksue can speak for himself and we can speak for ourselves. We just dont understand what your purpose really is? Are you speaking for Marriott, yourself because you are trying to learn about timeshare boards for your Worldmark timeshare or just because you like to bully folks on these boards?

 

[ecwinch]

Marksue can speak for himself and we can speak for ourselves. We just dont understand what your purpose really is? Are you speaking for Marriott, yourself because you are trying to learn about timeshare boards for your Worldmark timeshare or just because you like to bully folks on these boards?

I have been involved in this thread for over 9 months. My goal, as I have stated many times, has been to be a moderate voice. At times I side with the crusaders, but more frequently I am forced to rebut when opinion is stated as fact or with the rewritten history that is offered. In fact you have even made that same observation.

We are in a lull right now, awaiting further developments. The tone of the thread has become more of playful banter. If you are taking my posts as a personal afront, or feel I am bullying you, I apologize. That is not my intent. It is just playful banter, and I am sorry that you are taking some other way.

Likewise, I could ask what your purpose is? Why do you feel the need to question why people post? Why do you post?

 

[Luckybee]

No problem. I understand that you were just pinch-hitting for Mark. Perhaps he will chime to answer the owners question.

This is why your posts are so darn annoying. I have corresponded with Mark once by email. I dont know the man, have never met him, know nothing about him other than what I have heard through others and yet your sarcasm drools through as though Mark and I have some connection. Why would I pinch hit for him ? Pure utter nonsense yet your spinning it this way to attempt to influence other owners. If Mark is smart he wont speak to your comments at all...I shouldnt either since they are so full of.... !

 

[Luckybee]

I have been involved in this thread for over 9 months. My goal, as I have stated many times, has been to be a moderate voice. At times I side with the crusaders, but more frequently I am forced to rebut when opinion is stated as fact or with the rewritten history that is offered. In fact you have even made that same observation.

We are in a lull right now, awaiting further developments. The tone of the thread has become more of playful banter. If you are taking my posts as a personal afront, or feel I am bullying you, I apologize. That is not my intent. It is just playful banter, and I am sorry that you are taking some other way.

Likewise, I could ask what your purpose is? Why do you feel the need to question why people post? Why do you post?

Im sorry but I dont think its playful banter at all when you make the kind of comments you make !

 

[ecwinch]

Im sorry but I dont think its playful banter at all when you make the kind of comments you make !

I respect your right to have that opinion, but I can only indicate my intent. I have apologized, and outlined my logic.

I can understand that it is annoying that I have a different opinion, and that I am diligent about voicing it. Someone challenging your opinion can be difficult for some. It is just a difference of opinion, and nothing personal (on my end at least).

 

[Luckybee]

I respect your right to have that opinion, but I can only indicate my intent. I have apologized, and outlined my logic.

I can understand that it is annoying that I have a different opinion, and that I am diligent about voicing it. Someone challenging your opinion can be difficult for some. It is just a difference of opinion, and nothing personal (on my end at least).

It isnt your opinion I have problems with ! If you had read my post carefully I didnt question that part of your comments that were opinion. It is that you try to slant the truth as evidenced by some of your comments ie : "that I was pinch hitting for Marrk", after I had already indicated in previous posts that I was not involved in the concerned owners group and that I didnt know Mark. Or where you indicated that I had said that the BOD WOULD be replaced, when in fact I said I was optimistic that they would. You werent challenging my opinion, you were attributing statements to me that I did not make. But now Im just repeating myself. If you dont understand what Im saying by now Im sure you wont by my saying it again !

 

[ecwinch]

It isnt your opinion I have problems with ! If you had read my post carefully I didnt question that part of your comments that were opinion. It is that you try to slant the truth as evidenced by some of your comments ie : "that I was pinch hitting for Marrk", after I had already indicated in previous posts that I was not involved in the concerned owners group and that I didnt know Mark. Or where you indicated that I had said that the BOD WOULD be replaced, when in fact I said I was optimistic that they would. You werent challenging my opinion, you were attributing statements to me that I did not make. But now Im just repeating myself. If you dont understand what Im saying by now Im sure you wont by my saying it again !

You are reading way too much into my post. I meant, "pinch-hitting" as in Mark has not posted in response to VacationMama's post, so you are doing so.

It was not meant to infer that you and Mark are in some sinister cabal together, and acting in concert.

And I was asking follow-up questions of you. Other than the first item, which I apologized for, each item had a question mark at the end. I was not attributing that statement to you, it was a question to you.

I understood your response the first time. Again, I do not know why I have struck a nerve, but I meant no harm by my remarks. I would suggest we forgive and forget....

 

[marksue]

It seems to me that by the time the concerned group of AOC owners is done, the Ocean Club that we all have loved will be in such disarray and have such a bad name from all the controversy that no one will go there, want to buy there and the Marriott will give it up as well for management. Then we can all say thank you to this group for devaluing what we all bought to the point that they are as worthless as many stocks have become.

Your units will not be devalued. The units are currently devalued because of the high MF. It costs less to buy into the Surf Club then the based OC on the MF comparing the 2 bedroom units. About $500 cheaper annually.

In fact when all is said and done Marriott will still be running the place, but the owners will have more say and will know what is going on. Marriott will not walk from the property that is between the hotel and SC. The fallout from such a move would be a PR nightmare. Can you imagine Hyatt owning the building inbetween and blocking all access to SC or Hotel folks.

Transparency will be a boon to the owners vs what we have today is a board that is not giving us the entire story and is being manipulated by Marriott as we can see from the BOD elections.

If any owner has questions or concerns please feel free to send me a PM. I will respond to you as soon as I can.

 

[modoaruba]

Seems like Eric pushed a few buttons out there.
Take it in stride.
Going on the defensive does not add to the cause.
A true cause must stand on it's own merits.
Until more substantial info is heard some have tried to bait,and it's working.
Since this board is still active,why be offensive?
Why take the opposing views seriously?Have fun with them just like they're having fun with the causal views.

 

[SueDonJ]

Your units will not be devalued. The units are currently devalued because of the high MF. It costs less to buy into the Surf Club then the based OC on the MF comparing the 2 bedroom units. About $500 cheaper annually. ...

This completely discounts the facts that have been stated here numerous times but completely ignored by the "concerned owners" group:
- that Marriott Aruba Ocean Club has fewer weeks in its inventory than Marriott Aruba Surf Club,
- that MASC sits on a smaller parcel of land than MAOC,
- that MAOC is an older resort than MASC, and,
- that MAOC's m/f have not been in line historically with comparable Aruban properties.

All of those factors make Aruba Ocean Club a more expensive resort to maintain. As Dean has said here many times, the cost comparisons should be made between Marriott's Aruba Ocean Club and similar resorts on the island, not between Marriott's two Aruban properties.

In fact when all is said and done Marriott will still be running the place, but the owners will have more say and will know what is going on. ...

Preface this with, "Hopefully, if the "concerned owners" group is eventually successful with demands that do not appear to conform to the Marriott timeshare model as stipulated in the contracts, and MVCI does not get pushed by those demands to the point of severing its management relationship with AOC ..."

Marriott will not walk from the property that is between the hotel and SC. The fallout from such a move would be a PR nightmare. Can you imagine Hyatt owning the building inbetween and blocking all access to SC or Hotel folks. ...

Again, another complete discounting of the facts that Marriott/MVCI has in the past dissolved management agreements with certain properties, and survived the PR fallout.

Transparency will be a boon to the owners vs what we have today is a board that is not giving us the entire story and is being manipulated by Marriott as we can see from the BOD elections. ...

And again, there is no contract provision that will support such a relationship between an MVCI resort and its BOD.

Nevermind that owners should expect that Marriott/MVCI will "manipulate" anything at all with respect to their resorts that is contractually enforceable. What this group sees as "manipulations," other people see as good business practices.

 

[tlwmkw]

Just FYI- the Barony Beach Club on Hilton Head is built around a Westin and it doesn't seem to phase anyone- admittedly this was built this way so less of a "PR" issue. But if Marriott decides that the Aruba Ocean Club is getting too expensive or difficult to run they will drop it regardless of how the other resorts are arranged. Another thing to note is that the resort wasn't built by Marriott (as you have repeatedly pointed out) and they have so far only dropped resorts built by others. Don't think that you are safe from losing Marriott if they decide it is not worth their trouble to stick with the AOC.

 

[Luckybee]

You are reading way too much into my post. I meant, "pinch-hitting" as in Mark has not posted in response to VacationMama's post, so you are doing so.

It was not meant to infer that you and Mark are in some sinister cabal together, and acting in concert.

And I was asking follow-up questions of you. Other than the first item, which I apologized for, each item had a question mark at the end. I was not attributing that statement to you, it was a question to you.

I understood your response the first time. Again, I do not know why I have struck a nerve, but I meant no harm by my remarks. I would suggest we forgive and forget....

Given what you've now said I obviously misinterpreted your post. No problem...forgive and forget is appropriate

 

[modoaruba]

Speculation at best by both sides.
How does one know as fact what Marriott will do?
When Mr. Marriott himself comes out with an answer, then I can reply with intelligence.
Some may say "deductive reasoning",I say BS until there is a definitive answer.Sometimes what is obvious to some may surprise them in the end.
In the mean time,since it is taking a long time,it's getting very repeatitive.