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

[Luckybee]

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.

This is just my personal opinion but I dont necessarily agree that there is no possibility that Marriott would walk away. But perhaps unlike others owners the thought of that happening doesnt worry me. I say that because we didnt buy to trade we bought to use(the only trades we have made since inception were because of medical issues). So for us that fear simply isnt there ! Admittedly the original purchase was done partly because of the Marriott name but, given what has now transpired Im not very confident with that name any longer
There are a great number of timeshares on the island that are run on the island as independents quite successfully. Moreover, as Allan pointed out there are a great number of other reputable companies out there ie : Hilton, Sheraton, Westin etc.

 

[SueDonJ]

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.

The dissolution that happened at Vail is the one to be most leery of - there the property was split up and MVCI continued its management agreeement with only certain buildings. (See this post from Dean.)

If MVCI would be willing to continue a management agreement with only certain buildings within a resort, the possibility definitely exists that they would be willing to dissolve a management contract with a certain resort regardless of the neighboring properties.

 

[SueDonJ]

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.

You can't know exactly what Marriott will do, but you can review and acknowledge past history to get an idea of what they may do. I fail to see how it helps the cause to completely ignore such things as MVCI's past actions and the contractual limitations that run counter to the "concerned owners" expectations. Sure, they want things at their resort to be a certain way, but as yet (at least here) they have not acknowledged any of the legitimate obstructions standing in the way of what they would term a successful MVCI/BOD/owner relationship.

(And no, this isn't a demand that any of the owners must immediately answer every single one of my comments here. It's just an observation by me.)

You're exactly right, though, that this is all repetitive. At this point most of us could probably recite this stuff in our sleep.

 

[ecwinch]

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.

I think you mean to say it costs less to own as SC on an annual basis. Obviously if resale prices are dropping to the extent reported here, it costs less to "buy into" AOC.

As Sue pointed out, the difference in m/f is largely due to the lower density, larger lot, and far fewer units. But a contributing factor is also the decision made by the BoD, that Allan Cohen led, to add a separate General Manager & supporting staff to the AOC operating costs. For obvious reasons, that last point keeps failing through the cracks.

Even if everything else had stayed the same - no spike in energy costs, no repairs, no refurbishment, no inflation - m/f were still going to increase due to decision made by the BoD that Allan led, to further break with SC, and create a separate mgt team.

But the current BoD seems to get all the blame for that issue. Go figure.

And I for one, think it is foolhardy to think that MVCI will continue to manage a resort that has a BoD that wants to pursue legal action and is adversarial. No sane person would continue a business relationship in that type of environment. IMO - as soon as that comes to pass, MVCI will drop AOC so fast it will make your head spin. Want to speculate on nightmares - I think they will endure having to walk-around AOC in order to get rid of that one.

Mark, I understand that it furthers your goal to ignore and discount that possibility. But I think you are being disingenuous in ignoring the valid concern of AOC owners.

 

[marksue]

As Sue pointed out, the difference in m/f is largely due to the lower density, larger lot, and far fewer units. But a contributing factor is also the decision made by the BoD, that Allan Cohen led, to add a separate General Manager & supporting staff to the AOC operating costs. For obvious reasons, that last point keeps failing through the cracks.
Even if everything else had stayed the same - no spike in energy costs, no repairs, no refurbishment, no inflation - m/f were still going to increase due to decision made by the BoD that Allan led, to further break with SC, and create a separate mgt team.

.

It has not gone under the radar. I have been quite vocal about hiring of the mgmt team in the OC during these economic times. In fact there are numerous posts about it. Frank, Melissa and Steve were all part of the board

Up until this year the surf club and ocean club had similar mf. The difference was about $100 more for the OC. Now a 1 BR MF in the OC costs more than a 2br in the SC.

 

[london]

Marriott Drops AOC

It will be interesting to see if in fact Marriott will cancel the contract with AOC?

I assume that the present agreement will run a few years, unless terminated by mutual consent of all parties.

I am just an interested outside party....I realize the original post was to read if you are an AOC owner.

It appears that many posts are from non-owners.

Perhaps we should stay out of the conversation?

 

[Chemee]

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.

What similar resorts are you talking about? I know of none that are in the same league. You need to compare apples to apples, not apples to oranges.

 

[ecwinch]

It has not gone under the radar. I have been quite vocal about hiring of the mgmt team in the OC during these economic times. In fact there are numerous posts about it. Frank, Melissa and Steve were all part of the board

Up until this year the surf club and ocean club had similar mf. The difference was about $100 more for the OC. Now a 1 BR MF in the OC costs more than a 2br in the SC.

And who was the BoD President when the decision was made? And how did he vote on the issue?

I am sure he voted against the measure, being such a staunch advocate of the owners and having such a strong desire to keep costs low.

And your earlier protests ignored the fact that the decision had already been executed, and how problematic it would have been to revert to the previous arrangement. Employment contracts, termination costs, etc. And there is no obligation on the behalf of the SC to revert to the previous arrangement. So that would have to have been negotiated. And it sounds like the two resorts get along, so that should not be a problem. lol...

Like most points you have made, you completely omitted the difficulty in implementing your suggestion. The reverse is true, you made it sound like the BoD could unilaterally make that change without any problem. And I think your recollection on the timing might be off....

I recognize that it is an inconvenient truth in the revisionist history provided here.

Go ahead, you can say it.....

 

[ecwinch]

It appears that many posts are from non-owners.

Perhaps we should stay out of the conversation?

Why?

From my perspective, the ripple effect from this action is already forcing MVCI to operate differently at all resorts. It impacts all of us, and the fallout could be greater.

For your resort, has your BoD members contact info disappeared? And now all communication needs to flow through the MVCI on-site manager?

It has at mine. I only get the names of my BoD members. No phone, address, or e-mail.

It is reasonable to deduce that events at AOC contributed to this change. The information was available to me last year.

And it not a discussion, as much as it is a pulpit. Or maybe a stage with audience participation.

 

[SueDonJ]

What similar resorts are you talking about? I know of none that are in the same league. You need to compare apples to apples, not apples to oranges.

My mistake in wording; Dean's actual idea was that cost comparisons should be made between similar island properties, not necessarily those only situated on Aruba. I believe he made the comparison to Hawaiian resorts, and possibly St. Kitts or St. Thomas?

In any event, what you say about comparing apples to oranges is appropriate here. MAOC and MASC are not comparable resorts for a number of reasons.

 

[ecwinch]

What similar resorts are you talking about? I know of none that are in the same league. You need to compare apples to apples, not apples to oranges.

There are a lot of resorts in Aruba. Do you want to expound on your position?

For, I think there are some other Aruba resort owners that might take umbrage with that comment. Clarification might prevent another flame war...

 

[SueDonJ]

It will be interesting to see if in fact Marriott will cancel the contract with AOC?

I assume that the present agreement will run a few years, unless terminated by mutual consent of all parties.

I am just an interested outside party....I realize the original post was to read if you are an AOC owner.

It appears that many posts are from non-owners.

Perhaps we should stay out of the conversation?

We've discussed this before. I think that there is a lot to learn here for any MVCI owner, both in terms of this individual resort and MVCI in its entirety. Those who don't own at MAOC are not by virtue of their non-owner status completely ignorant to the issues and situations that do/may apply here, which means the input from them could actually aid the "concerned owners" group in their efforts.

Besides, where do you draw the line at prohibiting/qualifying input? Only those who have signed on Marksue's dotted line should participate? Only those who own at MAOC and sympathize with the cause should participate? Only those who own at MAOC despite their opposition to the cause should participate? Any old Joe Schmoe should participate?

I'll take the Joe Schmoe one - the more, the merrier.

 

[timeos2]

The end game has actually come and some don't seem to see it

From my outsiders viewpoint it appears the lines have been drawn now between the splinter group - smaller than originally thought it was it appears - and the majority that seemingly stands with Marriott. The bottom line is the second group has control, has implemented the fee structure as they saw needed, have OK'd the renovavtions/repairs/plans as proposed, put in place the management structure they desired and now things will operate under that rule unless a major and unexpected turn of events takes place. They will be proposing the 2010 budget/fees and will in all likelihood have th votes in place to approve it.

The chance of things ever being rolled back or fees reduced are just about nil. The owners had best decide if they like what has resulted and are willing to stay with it or if it doesn't represent value for them any longer. The "war" is over barring a sudden shot that will take dollars that I seriously doubt anyone is willing to put up. Unless they do you can call this thread done.

 

[ecwinch]

From my outsiders viewpoint it appears the lines have been drawn now between the splinter group - smaller than originally thought it was it appears - and the majority that seemingly stands with Marriott. The bottom line is the second group has control, has implemented the fee structure as they saw needed, have OK'd the renovavtions/repairs/plans as proposed, put in place the management structure they desired and now things will operate under that rule unless a major and unexpected turn of events takes place. They will be proposing the 2010 budget/fees and will in all likelihood have th votes in place to approve it.

The chance of things ever being rolled back or fees reduced are just about nil. The owners had best decide if they like what has resulted and are willing to stay with it or if it doesn't represent value for them any longer. The "war" is over barring a sudden shot that will take dollars that I seriously doubt anyone is willing to put up. Unless they do you can call this thread done.

I disagree that this thread is done. It serves as a good outlet for TUG'ers to keep up to date on the continuing saga. Otherwise, we would have a new thread every time there is a development. And that thread would not contain all the interesting background on issue.

Sure the banter might seem pointless when we have these big lulls in activity. But every now and then, a new owner at AOC wanders in, and it gives them a good resource for learning the history of the crusade (if they are bored out of their mind), ask questions, and express their viewpoint - pro or con. VacationMamma being a recent example.

I think that is important.

And I do not stand with MVCI. I stand against the splinter group that wants to take control of the resort. Allowing a disgruntled former BoD President whose feelings got hurt, to abuse his position and secretly support a militant faction is a violation of his fiduciary responsibilities, IMO. It poisons the whole crusade.

 

[timeos2]

Keep it up but the facts are the facts

I disagree that this thread is done. It serves as a good outlet for TUG'ers to keep up to date on the continuing saga. Otherwise, we would have a new thread every time there is a development. And that thread would not contain all the interesting background on issue.

Sure the banter might seem pointless when we have these big lulls in activity. But every now and then, a new owner at AOC wanders in, and it gives them a good resource for learning the history of the crusade (if they are bored out of their mind), ask questions, and express their viewpoint - pro or con.

I think that is important.

I don't mean kill the thread - its great - but that the news isn't what the splinter group wants (and is unlikely to ever get now) but rather the ongoing and regular operation of the resort. Still interesting but no longer subject to change as it is posted as a done deal. Not to say complaints or suggestions can;t be offered but it appears those in power aren't listening here or don't care/agree.

 

[modoaruba]

Allowing a disgruntled former BoD President whose feelings got hurt, to abuse his position and secretly support a militant faction is a violation of his fiduciary responsibilities, IMO. It poisons the whole crusade.

I do not agreee with the tone regarding Allan.
After speaking to him in the past, I feel he was very sincere in his beliefs and was conducting himself in what he believes to be in the best interest of the owners.
Wether he be right or wrong,his views are backed by facts.He is not shooting from the hip.
He believes in transparancy as opposed to Marriott's status quo.
He brought to light many issues that no one would ever know about while Marriott keeps them under lock and key.
Owners are split between the two.
So which is right?

 

[london]

Well Said

From my outsiders viewpoint it appears the lines have been drawn now between the splinter group - smaller than originally thought it was it appears - and the majority that seemingly stands with Marriott. The bottom line is the second group has control, has implemented the fee structure as they saw needed, have OK'd the renovavtions/repairs/plans as proposed, put in place the management structure they desired and now things will operate under that rule unless a major and unexpected turn of events takes place. They will be proposing the 2010 budget/fees and will in all likelihood have th votes in place to approve it.

The chance of things ever being rolled back or fees reduced are just about nil. The owners had best decide if they like what has resulted and are willing to stay with it or if it doesn't represent value for them any longer. The "war" is over barring a sudden shot that will take dollars that I seriously doubt anyone is willing to put up. Unless they do you can call this thread done.

John

You have summed this up nicely. I agree totally.

 

[AwayWeGo]

The Important Question.

Owners are split between the two.
So which is right?

Would you rather be right ?

Or would you rather be happy ?

-- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​

 

[ecwinch]

I don't mean kill the thread - its great - but that the news isn't what the splinter group wants (and is unlikely to ever get now) but rather the ongoing and regular operation of the resort. Still interesting but no longer subject to change as it is posted as a done deal. Not to say complaints or suggestions can;t be offered but it appears those in power aren't listening here or don't care/agree.

See I thought you were wading in with your Moderator hat, and blowing the 5 minute whistle. That you were not going to close the thread at that time.

And they really should give you hats, so we know when you are posting as a moderator and when you are expressing your individual opinion like any other.

They have not listened to the non-owners for a long time. Otherwise they would not be in the current pickle....

 

[modoaruba]

Would you rather be right ?

Or would you rather be happy ?

-- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​

If that what's it all about?
That's why I enjoy all of my vacations.
Isn't it amazing that the answer is always right in front of us?

 

[ecwinch]

Would you rather be right ?

Or would you rather be happy ?

-- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​

Actually I am generally only happy when I am right.

Not happy when I am wrong.

 

[modoaruba]

Actually I am generally only happy when I am right.

Not happy when I am wrong.

Howw coldd!

 

[ecwinch]

Allowing a disgruntled former BoD President whose feelings got hurt, to abuse his position and secretly support a militant faction is a violation of his fiduciary responsibilities, IMO. It poisons the whole crusade.

I do not agreee with the tone regarding Allan.
After speaking to him in the past, I feel he was very sincere in his beliefs and was conducting himself in what he believes to be in the best interest of the owners.
Wether he be right or wrong,his views are backed by facts.He is not shooting from the hip.
He believes in transparancy as opposed to Marriott's status quo.
He brought to light many issues that no one would ever know about while Marriott keeps them under lock and key.
Owners are split between the two.
So which is right?

I think you are reading too much into the words I selected, but I do not disagree with your points. I have said this before, I think Allan probably was the type of BoD President that most of us would like to have. From all accounts, he was a good owner advocate, worked tirelessly for the owners, and was extremely dedicated. I think he loved being BoD President.

My opinion is that something snapped when things did not go his way, and the BoD elected not to pursue the legal action against MVCI. At that point, I think he lost sight of his fiduciary responsibilities to the membership as a whole. I think his motivations were pure, but he failed to fully understand that he had no authority to undermine the actions of the BoD once it voted on the matter. That is where I deduce the problem lie. As a BoD member, once it had been voted on, he had the duty and obligation to support that decision and not undermine it. In undermining the actions of the BoD, he abused the power of his office. No matter how strongly he felt about the issue, his duty was to the BoD and the membership as a whole.

Further, I think he felt railroaded by MVCI efforts to enforce the by-laws regarding term limits, and remove him from a position that he loved. That emotion blinded his decision to begin to leak information to Mark, and to support Mark's crusade. The information leak and advice is well documented in this thread, and in my opinion represent a significant breach of his obligations and an abuse of his power.

This crusade would not have gone on as long as it has without Allan's encouragement and assistance. In the end, I doubt he will be proud of the outcome and the expense of his actions. JMO.

 

[Dean]

Just FYI- the Barony Beach Club on Hilton Head is built around a Westin and it doesn't seem to phase anyone

Maybe not totally related to your point but I think the setup of BBC does affect it's inherent value and how people think about it. Location is another negative compared to say Grande Ocean. Those in the know are less likely to trade to BBC given the fact they'll likely get a garden view unit and they are significantly inferior in location to the rest of the resort. This is less of an issue if you own but don't own a GV unit though it does affect trade power to a minor degree though maybe not enough to matter at this point. Plus being a Marriott has inherent value, something that would decrease immediately if Marriott pulled out.

Speculation at best by both sides.
How does one know as fact what Marriott will do?

I don't think anyone knows what Marriott will do, likely not even themselves at the present time. however, I think we know what they are capable of doing given the right circumstances and that is what many of us have pointed out. Don't think for a second they are not willing to walk away and divide up the resort given the right circumstances. Just ask the Vail owners who said Marriott could not LEGALLY divide up that resort including some very in the know TUGGERS. I doubt they would drop the contract but rather just let it expire, less controversy that way.

What similar resorts are you talking about? I know of none that are in the same league. You need to compare apples to apples, not apples to oranges.

I would compare to other resorts on the islands, other Marriott's in similar situations and resorts in HI including Marriott's and Westin's. Location has as much or more to do with maint fees than does quality. There's a certain amount of cost for doing things better, sooner, more upscale but that's actually a relatively small part of dues. The dues there were actually less than some lesser resorts on the island for a similar room if you compare apples to apples as much as possible including unit size, quality, location and set up. All the HI 2 BR units are in the $1500-1700 range including the ones that are not lockoff's.

It appears that many posts are from non-owners.

Perhaps we should stay out of the conversation?

Why, this affects all Marriott owners and potentially other timeshare owners as well to a lesser degree. Even if it didn't, this is an open board. As long as we stay reasonably on topic and don't get nasty, it shouldn't matter anyway. As I've posted twice, they can interact with PM, emails and could start their own group on places like Yahoo.

 

[ecwinch]

Don't think for a second they are not willing to walk away and divide up the resort given the right circumstances. Just ask the Vail owners who said Marriott could not LEGALLY divide up that resort including some very in the know TUGGERS. I doubt they would drop the contract but rather just let it expire, less controversy that way.

Great point.

Disagree on the last point though. I think faced with a militant BoD that is suing, they would use the termination provision. Common practice in litigation.