Marriott to Spin Off Timeshare Business [merged]

[dioxide45]

Isn't avertising like the post above... supposed to be against the rules ? I thought someone got booted for the same thing. I'm just sayin...

I agree, this poster is doing nothing to contribute to the thread or forum. Their only intent in posting seems to be to solicit for their own agenda. At least the other person that was booted was also a contributor.

 

[MOXJO7282]

I agree, this poster is doing nothing to contribute to the thread or forum. Their only intent in posting seems to be to solicit for their own agenda. At least the other person that was booted was also a contributor.

Help me understand his agenda? Is he an "ambulance chaser if you will" or just likes to stir things up. I never really followd the Aruba thread.

 

[MALC9990]

Help me understand his agenda? Is he an "ambulance chaser if you will" or just likes to stir things up. I never really followd the Aruba thread.

Basically he seems to have his own personal agenda with MVCI and Marriott and the issue of an owner representative - well he wants it to be HIMSELF !

 

[SueDonJ]

Help me understand his agenda? Is he an "ambulance chaser if you will" or just likes to stir things up. I never really followd the Aruba thread.

His latest agenda with the Aruba thread, and the reason he's engaged in a lawsuit with Marriott, is to get a list of the owners' personal contact information - name, home address, email address - so that he can contact owners directly to make sure that they all know his laundry list of concerns regarding the resort, the BOD, MVCI, Marriott, and the many ways he was wronged during and after his tenure as a member of the MAOC Board.

Thus far his ongoing efforts to get Marriott and/or the Court to release the list to him, among other things, have been unsuccessful and the cost at last count was $189K. The governing docs do not provide that the list must be released; it is available to be reviewed and copied at the resort, but Aruban law allows that the address of each owner on the list is the address of the resort. The Board put a measure up for an owners' vote to amend the docs to allow the personal contact information to be released, which measure was resoundingly defeated by a +80% majority of the voting ownership.

It's true that he has only posted three times to TUG. But throughout that Aruba thread there are MANY posts from members of the "concerned owners" group (self-described supporters of Allan Cohen) in which his myriad missives have been quoted word-for-word. As well, throughout that thread there are MANY links to the official Marriott documents which counter his allegations and suspicions.

Anyone who wants to read and learn both sides of the story is better served by doing their own research. Allan has never responded on the TUG boards to follow-up posts to his words, his response is always that people can call him to get the information they seek. However, once again I would caution anyone about calling, emailing or PM'ing him because of the allegations in that Aruba thread that he used and abused the contact information of MAOC owners that he'd gained access to as a board member, later when his crusade against all-things-MAOC began.

Many of his supporters have said repeatedly that they do not understand why any non-MAOC owners would be interested in the situation with that resort. Although it makes perfect sense to some of us that there are issues which cross over to all MVCI resorts - governance, owners' rights, management, etc - they have always believed that it is no one else's business.

Well, regardless of whether you believe that or not, things are different now. By his own word Allan Cohen has made it known that he has set his sights on a position of influence within the impending spin-off company. That makes every single one of us MVCI/DC owners a potential "beneficiary" of whatever missteps he makes. I don't know about the rest of you, but I'll be watching and will do whatever I can to protect my ownership and my pocketbook from the harm I know he's capable of inflicting.

*****

We should remember, the mods can't take action if they don't know something is out there. Just sayin'.

 

[rickxylon]

I would also suspect that Allen will try to get himself nominated for one of the open positions on the Ocean Club board this year. All of the owners there should watch out for this.

By the way, it sounds like his lawsuit in Aruba will probably drag on for some time due to the backlog of cases in the Aruban courts. Maybe he'll go away soon!

 

[Tommy_Boy]

There's a difference b/w advertising and advocacy. Allan's post is advocacy, not advertising.

 

[Tommy_Boy]

Yikes

So you wouldn't want someone who's tireless about advocating for the fair treatment of Ocean Club owners on the board? I've been reading the posts, and don't get the vitriol against Allen --- sure, perhaps he should have disclosed he proposed himself as an Ombudsman, but it's not like there's any suggestion that it was a *paid* position!! (I doubt it would be). If it was, maybe I'd (slightly) rethink my opinion. The guy is a fierce advocate for pro-owner policies by Marriott, keeping fees down, etc., etc....and people kill him for that? So bizarre! Anyone who can fill me in on the motives or opinions of the "Anti-Allen" (or even anti-his ideas...), please do. I mean, I understand if you think it's tilting at windmills to buy up stock in SpinCo, etc., etc. but an Ombudsman??? If it won't HURT (and how could it unless it were a Marriott stooge in the position), then it can only HELP.

I would also suspect that Allen will try to get himself nominated for one of the open positions on the Ocean Club board this year. All of the owners there should watch out for this.

By the way, it sounds like his lawsuit in Aruba will probably drag on for some time due to the backlog of cases in the Aruban courts. Maybe he'll go away soon!

 

[Tommy_Boy]

Still don't get it

From what I read earlier in this thread, the proposition on releasing addresses was so vaguely worded that it made most people think they were going to release addresses for marketing/solicitation purposes. It's not like Allan has a bridge (or a timeshare! haha) to sell us. So you're mad he sued Marriott, b/c it (very theoretically) pushed up ownership fees? Seems questionable at best --- that litigation cost is less than a drop in the bucket in Marriott's annual legal spend (I'm an in-house attorney at a Fortune 100 company). And the Ombuds thing, I addressed in an earlier post --- if you tell me he's getting paid to be the Ombudsman, that's one thing, but that's highly unlikely. So he has not "vested interest" other than the interest he's demonstrated in his posts (and even the posts of those who support him): advocating for owners' rights and fair treatment by Marriott, which has all the strength here, b/c 90% of owners don't know what is going on.

Finally, your earlier arguments that the ownership documents are silent on particular issues (such as release of addresses) --- who's side are YOU on, then? Are you suggesting that if the ownership documents, bylaws, etc., etc., are silent on an issue, Marriott should be the beneficiary? I would think/hope not.

Your distrust of Allan seems tenuous --- other than him suing Marriott, I'm not clear on what "missteps" you believe he's made, or why you don't trust him. I'll give you the failure to disclose on the Ombuds issue, but again, reiterate that there's little or no evidence that he's personally benefit from that position (except that he, like thousands of others, is an owner at MAOC)

His latest agenda with the Aruba thread, and the reason he's engaged in a lawsuit with Marriott, is to get a list of the owners' personal contact information - name, home address, email address - so that he can contact owners directly to make sure that they all know his laundry list of concerns regarding the resort, the BOD, MVCI, Marriott, and the many ways he was wronged during and after his tenure as a member of the MAOC Board.

Thus far his ongoing efforts to get Marriott and/or the Court to release the list to him, among other things, have been unsuccessful and the cost at last count was $189K. The governing docs do not provide that the list must be released; it is available to be reviewed and copied at the resort, but Aruban law allows that the address of each owner on the list is the address of the resort. The Board put a measure up for an owners' vote to amend the docs to allow the personal contact information to be released, which measure was resoundingly defeated by a +80% majority of the voting ownership.

It's true that he has only posted three times to TUG. But throughout that Aruba thread there are MANY posts from members of the "concerned owners" group (self-described supporters of Allan Cohen) in which his myriad missives have been quoted word-for-word. As well, throughout that thread there are MANY links to the official Marriott documents which counter his allegations and suspicions.

Anyone who wants to read and learn both sides of the story is better served by doing their own research. Allan has never responded on the TUG boards to follow-up posts to his words, his response is always that people can call him to get the information they seek. However, once again I would caution anyone about calling, emailing or PM'ing him because of the allegations in that Aruba thread that he used and abused the contact information of MAOC owners that he'd gained access to as a board member, later when his crusade against all-things-MAOC began.

Many of his supporters have said repeatedly that they do not understand why any non-MAOC owners would be interested in the situation with that resort. Although it makes perfect sense to some of us that there are issues which cross over to all MVCI resorts - governance, owners' rights, management, etc - they have always believed that it is no one else's business.

Well, regardless of whether you believe that or not, things are different now. By his own word Allan Cohen has made it known that he has set his sights on a position of influence within the impending spin-off company. That makes every single one of us MVCI/DC owners a potential "beneficiary" of whatever missteps he makes. I don't know about the rest of you, but I'll be watching and will do whatever I can to protect my ownership and my pocketbook from the harm I know he's capable of inflicting.

*****

We should remember, the mods can't take action if they don't know something is out there. Just sayin'.

 

[wof45]

I'm sorry, but I don't want someone supported by 1/6 of the members at a resort representing me.

I also don't want my association paying to copy lists of adresses, e-mail and phone numbers so he can harass other owners. I don't want those phone calls or e-mails. The association told him they would supply the mail addresses but he would have to pay for the copies -- but he thinks they should give them to him for free.

They even offered to have a page in each official notification to the members with his information, and that was not good enough for him.

Is this really the person you want representing you to MVCI?

(and I don't even know the guy -- I just read all the documents posted here and that show up on Google)

 

[SueDonJ]

So you wouldn't want someone who's tireless about advocating for the fair treatment of Ocean Club owners on the board? I've been reading the posts, and don't get the vitriol against Allen --- sure, perhaps he should have disclosed he proposed himself as an Ombudsman, but it's not like there's any suggestion that it was a *paid* position!! (I doubt it would be). If it was, maybe I'd (slightly) rethink my opinion. The guy is a fierce advocate for pro-owner policies by Marriott, keeping fees down, etc., etc....and people kill him for that? So bizarre! Anyone who can fill me in on the motives or opinions of the "Anti-Allen" (or even anti-his ideas...), please do. I mean, I understand if you think it's tilting at windmills to buy up stock in SpinCo, etc., etc. but an Ombudsman??? If it won't HURT (and how could it unless it were a Marriott stooge in the position), then it can only HELP.

In the abstract all of Allan's ideas have some measure of legitimacy to them. A pro-owner advocate? An ombudsman who can serve as an intermediary between owners and execs? A m/f watchdog? Sure, all of those ideas are worth looking into. In the abstract.

The ideal owner advocate/ombudsman/watchdog should have a practical knowledge of the governing docs (or be willing to learn it) so as to understand the limitations and obligations that all owners, resort developers and resort managers face. The ideal owner advocate/ombudsman/watchdog should not have an obvious contempt or bias towards or against any other owners, resort developers or resort managers. The ideal owner advocate/ombudsman/watchdog should be able to leave his/her partiality aside in order to form realistic expectations that better serve all owners in ways that are not in direct opposition to the governing docs. The ideal owner advocate/ombudsman/watchdog will serve in the position in such a way that s/he stands to benefit only as much or as little as any other owner, whether the benefit is material or otherwise.

But you asked for opinions specific to Allan Cohen and so I'm giving mine. Once Allan Cohen is put into the abstract positions, all those promising ideas become suspect. He has a history (which is chronicled in that Aruba Ocean Club thread for any who wish to learn it) of completely and irrationally dismissing the opinions of those who have a more practical knowledge than he does, when those opinions don't serve his purpose. He has a history of turning to relief from the Court systems, but wasting resources by not following established procedure while doing so. He has a history of abusing his past access to owners as a member of the resort BOD, and of manipulating people and situations to serve his personal agendas. Even more specifically, he has fostered an ongoing legal-adversary relationship with Marriott that will make it impossible for Marriott to deal with him in any such position, without Marriott jeopardizing its standing in the ongoing Court case.

 

[SueDonJ]

From what I read earlier in this thread, the proposition on releasing addresses was so vaguely worded that it made most people think they were going to release addresses for marketing/solicitation purposes. It's not like Allan has a bridge (or a timeshare! haha) to sell us. So you're mad he sued Marriott, b/c it (very theoretically) pushed up ownership fees? Seems questionable at best --- that litigation cost is less than a drop in the bucket in Marriott's annual legal spend (I'm an in-house attorney at a Fortune 100 company). And the Ombuds thing, I addressed in an earlier post --- if you tell me he's getting paid to be the Ombudsman, that's one thing, but that's highly unlikely. So he has not "vested interest" other than the interest he's demonstrated in his posts (and even the posts of those who support him): advocating for owners' rights and fair treatment by Marriott, which has all the strength here, b/c 90% of owners don't know what is going on.

Finally, your earlier arguments that the ownership documents are silent on particular issues (such as release of addresses) --- who's side are YOU on, then? Are you suggesting that if the ownership documents, bylaws, etc., etc., are silent on an issue, Marriott should be the beneficiary? I would think/hope not.

Your distrust of Allan seems tenuous --- other than him suing Marriott, I'm not clear on what "missteps" you believe he's made, or why you don't trust him. I'll give you the failure to disclose on the Ombuds issue, but again, reiterate that there's little or no evidence that he's personally benefit from that position (except that he, like thousands of others, is an owner at MAOC)

All I can keep repeating is that if you want both sides of the story, you should read the Aruba lawsuit thread to get the facts so that you can form your own opinion. You'll find posts from MAOC owners and non-owners on either side, you'll find his concerns and complaints in Allan's own words, you'll find links to all of the official Marriott docs to counter Allan's complaints as well as many of the Court filings, you'll find opinions on all of those things from many who are more or less knowledgeable than me. I formed my opinion, actually learned a great deal about my timeshare ownership, by reading every bit of info I could get my hands on. It's not my intent to get anybody to share my opinion about Allan Cohen, but to get everyone to understand that it's important to form their own because he's made it known that he wants to be in a position of influence in the impending spin-off company.

Think of it like this. There are a few board members at other resorts who post occasionally on TUG. I think it's great, would love to see more. But of the ones who do, I've formed an opinion about whether I think they're serving the position well by what they post to TUG. Another way to look at something similar - if ever a TUGger who owned at one of my resorts was to post an announcement that s/he is running for the BOD, I'd search old posts to get an idea of whether this TUGger would make a good board member IMO. Don't know if what I'm trying to say is clear here, but I'm trying to say that I don't have a personal issue with Allan Cohen the same way I wouldn't have a personal issue with someone on TUG running for a board seat. You don't look at who the person is, you look at what they've done.

 

[Steve]

Let's get back on track

If anyone wants to re-litigate the Aruba lawsuit thread, please don't do it here. This thread is about Marriott spinning off the timeshare division.

Steve
Tug Moderator

 

[marksue]

In the abstract all of Allan's ideas have some measure of legitimacy to them. A pro-owner advocate? An ombudsman who can serve as an intermediary between owners and execs? A m/f watchdog? Sure, all of those ideas are worth looking into. In the abstract.

The ideal owner advocate/ombudsman/watchdog should have a practical knowledge of the governing docs (or be willing to learn it) so as to understand the limitations and obligations that all owners, resort developers and resort managers face. The ideal owner advocate/ombudsman/watchdog should not have an obvious contempt or bias towards or against any other owners, resort developers or resort managers. The ideal owner advocate/ombudsman/watchdog should be able to leave his/her partiality aside in order to form realistic expectations that better serve all owners in ways that are not in direct opposition to the governing docs. The ideal owner advocate/ombudsman/watchdog will serve in the position in such a way that s/he stands to benefit only as much or as little as any other owner, whether the benefit is material or otherwise.

But you asked for opinions specific to Allan Cohen and so I'm giving mine. Once Allan Cohen is put into the abstract positions, all those promising ideas become suspect. He has a history (which is chronicled in that Aruba Ocean Club thread for any who wish to learn it) of completely and irrationally dismissing the opinions of those who have a more practical knowledge than he does, when those opinions don't serve his purpose. He has a history of turning to relief from the Court systems, but wasting resources by not following established procedure while doing so. He has a history of abusing his past access to owners as a member of the resort BOD, and of manipulating people and situations to serve his personal agendas. Even more specifically, he has fostered an ongoing legal-adversary relationship with Marriott that will make it impossible for Marriott to deal with him in any such position, without Marriott jeopardizing its standing in the ongoing Court case.

It is amazing someone who has had no experience with the AOC has so much to say and attack the efforts of other owners. We the owners went through the process described in our owner’s bylaws to try and implement change. MVCI put their lawyers on it and told the board to reject the owners request making up their own rules on the fly. So who brought legal into it first? Yet when asked for clarification MVCI and the board could not clarify what was necessary to meet the new rules of the game.

Everyone says Alan is suing the board. It is almost 2000 owners who are suing the board for the list of owners. Other MVCI timeshares share the list? What changes have occurred because of the concerned owners enabled: more transparency, more openness from the board, better financial controls. These are just a few of the changes that have taken place since the start of the Concerned Owners.

Last time I was in Aruba I attended the owners weekly meeting and was told by some of the AOC mgmt, that the concerned owners have many valid points that Marriott is covering up.

So unless you have been victimized by the AOC and MVCI with some of the highest maintenance fees starting prior to any legal action, a 33% increase in maint fees in 2008, been hit with assessments due to Marriott’s selling a defective building to owners costing owners millions of dollars in repairs, your opinions hold little weight with many current owners.

 

[Steve]

It is amazing someone who has had no experience with the AOC has so much to say and attack the efforts of other owners. We the owners went through the process described in our owner’s bylaws to try and implement change. MVCI put their lawyers on it and told the board to reject the owners request making up their own rules on the fly. So who brought legal into it first? Yet when asked for clarification MVCI and the board could not clarify what was necessary to meet the new rules of the game.

Everyone says Alan is suing the board. It is almost 2000 owners who are suing the board for the list of owners. Other MVCI timeshares share the list? What changes have occurred because of the concerned owners enabled: more transparency, more openness from the board, better financial controls. These are just a few of the changes that have taken place since the start of the Concerned Owners.

Last time I was in Aruba I attended the owners weekly meeting and was told by some of the AOC mgmt, that the concerned owners have many valid points that Marriott is covering up.

So unless you have been victimized by the AOC and MVCI with some of the highest maintenance fees starting prior to any legal action, a 33% increase in maint fees in 2008, been hit with assessments due to Marriott’s selling a defective building to owners costing owners millions of dollars in repairs, your opinions hold little weight with many current owners.

I repeat again, this thread is NOT the place to re-litigate the Aruba situation. That is covered at great length elsewhere.

Steve
Tug Moderator

 

[lovearuba]

You are right

I repeat again, this thread is NOT the place to re-litigate the Aruba situation. That is covered at great length elsewhere.

Steve
Tug Moderator

I agree with you and suggest you remove further comments that are not related to the spinoff, I have to say I do not envy your job these days

 

[Luckybee]

I would also suspect that Allen will try to get himself nominated for one of the open positions on the Ocean Club board this year. QUOTE]

We could be so lucky ! Better yet ...we would be exceedingly fortunate. Maybe then we'd get back to a point where a board member would actually be able to be found as opposed to hiding in a hidden bunker somewhere....lol.

I have no idea whether Allen could run again because of term limits. But virtually all owners I know would be thrilled should that be possible.

 

[Luckybee]

I agree with you and suggest you remove further comments that are not related to the spinoff, I have to say I do not envy your job these days

Sadly, the problem is that the selective editing would likely leave in the the posts that got the negativity started ....as we both know there are those on Tug who have a tendency of being pro marriott at any cost, and will be critical to the point of irrational to anyone who dare try to make positive changes, and for some reason those posters(perhaps because of high post counts) are left alone whether they abide by tug rules or not !

 

[SueDonJ]

DC Voting Restriction Lifted?

You know, thanks to TUGger Cmore we learned something pretty significant in this thread that's been left behind all this other stuff. (Mods, it's also unrelated to the thread topic so perhaps it merits its own thread?)

Here's the language in the Enrollment Agreement from when I enrolled last July:

1. Owner represents and warrants to MVCEC that, as an Exchange Member, Owner: ...
e. will not exercise any vote Owner may have in the owners "association" ("Resort Association") operating the resort in which Owner's Timeshare Interest is located ("Resort") in a manner that is, in MVCEC's reasonable discretion, detrimental to the Program, including, without limitation, voting to limit or terminate the Resort's participation in the Program.

Well, thanks to Cmore's post we now know that the latest version of the online enrollment doc does not contain that 1(e) stipulation, and neither does the one that he (she?) signed onsite at DSII.

What does this mean?! Why did Marriott remove it? Is there something in the docs elsewhere that ensures the same result for Marriott, or is this as significant a change as it appears?

There were quite a few TUGgers who said that the voting restriction was the major stumbling block to them enrolling. If you were one of them, what are you thinking now?

Lots of questions ....

 

[dioxide45]

---Deleted---

 

[TJCNewYork]

There were quite a few TUGgers who said that the voting restriction was the major stumbling block to them enrolling. If you were one of them, what are you thinking now?

Just one more reason that supports the concept of board-level owner representation, specifically 'advocacy' thinking. (Thank you TommyBoy for articulating that so well.)

Jumping to any conclusion about who the person is may be getting ahead of ourselves. Perhaps focusing on selection criteria may shift this discourse?

Someone who relies on what's in the by-laws, contracts and documents makes sense. Given the regulatory landscape an understanding of the statutes makes sense too. Maybe more than one person is needed?

As a suggestion, let's tackle this: Is there a business case to support the concept of board-level owner representation in spinco?

 

[TJCNewYork]

I repeat again, this thread is NOT the place to re-litigate the Aruba situation. That is covered at great length elsewhere.

Thank you, Steve. Moderating this is quite the challenge. What if discussion is redirected to focus on the lessons-learned and the relevance to spinco?

For starters, the polarization is very evident. Will it be to spinco's advantage to engage or polarize owners? What factors contribute to polarization and how can such factors be dealt with so that spinco is successful out of the gate?

 

[Dave M]

Moderator Warning
As Steve, another moderator, stated above, it's time to get this thread back on track (re the spin-off of MVIC) and stop bickering about a topic that belongs in the long AOC thread, not here.

Those who wish to have a mandatory vacation from posting here can feel free to ignore this warning.

Dave M
BBS Moderator

 

[Cmore]

...
As a suggestion, let's tackle this: Is there a business case to support the concept of board-level owner representation in spinco?

Being an owner of a "not so small" business I can think of no business case where this makes sense. That is not to say, that I don't think a business should not listen to its customers. It chooses not to at its own peril.

This thread alone and the Aruba one before it, should clearly identify the fact that no single person, or any small group of people could ever hope to properly "represent" an entire ownership group as large and diverse as mvci's. Thinking otherwise is simply naive. Personally, I like to do my own thinking.

 

[Fredm]

Deleted.......

 

[TJCNewYork]

Being an owner of a "not so small" business I can think of no business case where this makes sense.

Cmore - Very cool. Congratulations on your 'not so small' business. To survive, let alone thrive through the cycles we're experiencing suggests that you're doing something right in your industry and for your business. Best wishes for continued success.

While you personally cannot think of sensible business case to support the concept of board-level owner representation on spinco - at this moment - I sense an open door.

I can agree that there is a solid business case for maintaining status quo, but the creation of a spinco seems anything but status quo. Historically, selling timeshare and the successful growth of vacation ownership relied upon the power of the referral: Satisfied owners referring family and friends. The power of the referral was based upon the integrity, trust, reliability and confidence in the brand.

Well, we all know what happened over the past year or so.

That is not to say, that I don't think a business should not listen to its customers. It chooses not to at its own peril.

Exactly. Spinco has the potential to be a breakthrough response to market decline, shareholder investment pressures and polarized customer challenges.

The posts here have several common themes ranging from accolades for spinco and reorganization being long overdue to a sense of abandon and betrayal for dumping timeshares. And, owner feedback to DC here has been steadily growing for 9 months now.

"At its own peril" best describes the situation. Intuitively, spinco will have to do something different to re-engage and unify their customers, because the primary drivers of the referral model - integrity, trust, reliability and confidence appear to be severely compromised.

Perhaps, the business case that favors board-level owner representation is restoration of owner trust and confidence in the brand. W/out these pearls, growing a "not so small" business that relies so heavily on owner satisfaction is most definitely "At its own peril".