Trouble - Marriott Grand Residence Tahoe [Management Agreement in Jeopardy?]

[SueDonJ]

I think both the owners and MVW benefit from the affiliation, but I don't think lower survey scores would be anywhere near enough to get them dis-affiliated. MAR/MVW sells the ongoing fee stream part of their business to Wall Street as justification for stock price improvement, and they care about growing that more than anything else. They wouldn't cut GRC loose unless it was egregious, and a drop in satisfaction related to activities isn't nearly close enough.

Does anybody reading here seriously think that it's NOT an egregious dereliction of duty for the HOA to receive a budget from the management company for its review/approval, and decide unilaterally to reduce the utility/insurance costs that are billed by third-parties based on a random qualifier that doesn't correlate to the resort at all?! With the result being that the mgmt co is required to exercise its contractual right - contractual OBLIGATION! - to override the Board's approved budget, pay the necessary bills to keep the resort functioning, and reimburse itself from the resort coffers?!

Anybody who thinks THAT'S not egregious, I'd love to know what you think would be.

I also don't understand why anybody would confidently think that a resort separating from a Marriott entity as its management company is a near impossibility, considering the history of it happening already in a number of cases for a number of different reasons. Not all were instigated by the ownership at large, and Marriott didn't fight tooth and nail in all cases to prevent separations. IMO the incidence of a Board playing fast and loose with operating costs would be near if not at the top of the list for Marriott to flee.

Understand, I'm not saying it will definitely happen here with GRC Tahoe, that it's a foregone conclusion. But sticking your head in the sand and saying it definitely won't is playing a dangerous game, especially if the Board doesn't get its act together.

 

[Eric B]

One related issue is whether it’s ever actually possible to have vomit that isn’t regurgitated.

 

[ocdb8r]

Does anybody reading here seriously think that it's NOT an egregious dereliction of duty for the HOA to receive a budget from the management company for its review/approval, and decide unilaterally to reduce the utility/insurance costs that are billed by third-parties based on a random qualifier that doesn't correlate to the resort at all?! With the result being that the mgmt co is required to exercise its contractual right - contractual OBLIGATION! - to override the Board's approved budget, pay the necessary bills to keep the resort functioning, and reimburse itself from the resort coffers?!

Anybody who thinks THAT'S not egregious, I'd love to know what you think would be.

I also don't understand why anybody would confidently think that a resort separating from a Marriott entity as its management company is a near impossibility, considering the history of it happening already in a number of cases for a number of different reasons. Not all were instigated by the ownership at large, and Marriott didn't fight tooth and nail in all cases to prevent separations. IMO the incidence of a Board playing fast and loose with operating costs would be near if not at the top of the list for Marriott to flee.

Understand, I'm not saying it will definitely happen here with GRC Tahoe, that it's a foregone conclusion. But sticking your head in the sand and saying it definitely won't is playing a dangerous game, especially if the Board doesn't get its act together.

Agree on all fronts.

I don't have enough knowledge of the MVC instances where things like this have happened, but this happened (pre-MVC) with Cave Creek (which I think was initiated by the Board, but Vistana basically agreed there was no use in trying to salvage the relationship) and we saw this recently with HGVC's Coylumbridge (where HGVC was in fact the one who initiated walking away). All that said, I do agree that it is not in MVC's interest (or business plan) to ever walk away from a revenue stream. I think clearly GRC provides both good management and rental revenue, so I am sure the chances of MVC walking away are low. BUT, never say never. They aren't going to sit around and risk the failure of the basic operation of the resort because the Board wants to reduce the budget at all costs.

 

[bizaro86]

Does anybody reading here seriously think that it's NOT an egregious dereliction of duty for the HOA to receive a budget from the management company for its review/approval, and decide unilaterally to reduce the utility/insurance costs that are billed by third-parties based on a random qualifier that doesn't correlate to the resort at all?! With the result being that the mgmt co is required to exercise its contractual right - contractual OBLIGATION! - to override the Board's approved budget, pay the necessary bills to keep the resort functioning, and reimburse itself from the resort coffers?!

Anybody who thinks THAT'S not egregious, I'd love to know what you think would be.

I also don't understand why anybody would confidently think that a resort separating from a Marriott entity as its management company is a near impossibility, considering the history of it happening already in a number of cases for a number of different reasons. Not all were instigated by the ownership at large, and Marriott didn't fight tooth and nail in all cases to prevent separations. IMO the incidence of a Board playing fast and loose with operating costs would be near if not at the top of the list for Marriott to flee.

Understand, I'm not saying it will definitely happen here with GRC Tahoe, that it's a foregone conclusion. But sticking your head in the sand and saying it definitely won't is playing a dangerous game, especially if the Board doesn't get its act together.

My understanding of the situation is that the board declined to approve the budget, not specifically the utilities piece, trying to leverage MVW into cutting things they wanted cut (eg activities spending). Instead, Marriott said they couldn't cut utilities and insurance and appropriated extra money on the basis it was an emergency and paid all the bills.

Now, I think reasonable minds can look at that from both sides. Certainly not paying the utilities would be egregious. But (1) that didn't happen, and (2) that isn't what the board wanted to happen.

If you look at it only from the MVW-communicated side then it appears egregious, and that's by design. However, the people making the decision to give up all that sweet sweet recurring management revenue would be aware of the spin they put on their owner facing communications.

Would you say it was egregious to cut the activities? MVW could have done that instead. That's what the board wanted and money is fungible. The money that went to the activities staff could have gone to pay the power bill.

MVW will only leave if they are forced out. The money is too important to them. And given how much leverage they have (eg voting trust ownerships) I think it's a near certainty they'll end up replacing the board and doing whatever they want anyway.

 

[SueDonJ]

Does anybody reading here seriously think that it's NOT an egregious dereliction of duty for the HOA to receive a budget from the management company for its review/approval, and decide unilaterally to reduce the utility/insurance costs that are billed by third-parties based on a random qualifier that doesn't correlate to the resort at all?! With the result being that the mgmt co is required to exercise its contractual right - contractual OBLIGATION! - to override the Board's approved budget, pay the necessary bills to keep the resort functioning, and reimburse itself from the resort coffers?! ...

I know I'm talking to myself again but I missed adding the worst part:

After that happened with the budget (which the ownership at large was NOT apprised of at the time of it happening by either Marriott or the Board) when the owners finally first heard about it, it was in dueling communications with Marriott singling out utility/insurance costs as the main driver of the shortfall and the Board alleging that the management company was wrong to dip into the resort coffers to reimburse itself to cover costs that the Board's approved budget didn't cover. Both that right and that OBLIGATION are stated as plain as can be in the Management Agreement! Yet the Board chose to mislead (which is the nicest way to say they LIED TO) the owners and put the blame for wrongdoing on Marriott?! What unmitigated gall. Did they think Marriott wouldn't respond to protect itself? Do they think owners are so stupid that they wouldn't understand the situation, or so willingly ignorant that they'd prefer to not know the details and be okay with whatever the Board does to keep costs low?!

 

[SueDonJ]

My understanding of the situation is that the board declined to approve the budget, not specifically the utilities piece, trying to leverage MVW into cutting things they wanted cut (eg activities spending). Instead, Marriott said they couldn't cut utilities and insurance and appropriated extra money on the basis it was an emergency and paid all the bills.

Now, I think reasonable minds can look at that from both sides. Certainly not paying the utilities would be egregious. But (1) that didn't happen, and (2) that isn't what the board wanted to happen.

If you look at it only from the MVW-communicated side then it appears egregious, and that's by design. However, the people making the decision to give up all that sweet sweet recurring management revenue would be aware of the spin they put on their owner facing communications.

Would you say it was egregious to cut the activities? MVW could have done that instead. That's what the board wanted and money is fungible. The money that went to the activities staff could have gone to pay the power bill.

MVW will only leave if they are forced out. The money is too important to them. And given how much leverage they have (eg voting trust ownerships) I think it's a near certainty they'll end up replacing the board and doing whatever they want anyway.

I wouldn't say any cuts to a resort budget are egregious as long as there is agreement between the resort Board and the Management Company as to which specific line items are in play. I can't imagine that cutting Activities would generate monies to cover Utilities, though, especially not if it's already happened that Utilities were underfunded in prior years. I also can't imagine a Marriott resort without an Activities Schedule on a permanent basis, but maybe for one year in a desperate situation IF it solves the situation? Sure, but that's not what's possible here. And if something like that could work, I would expect every single affected line item in the budget to reflect it - so no Board approval of a budget that includes an Activities fee with the understanding that those monies will be appropriated behind the scenes to cover something else.

 

[Dean]

I wouldn't say any cuts to a resort budget are egregious as long as there is agreement between the resort Board and the Management Company as to which specific line items are in play. I can't imagine that cutting Activities would generate costs to cover Utilities, though, especially not if it's already happened that Utilities were underfunded in prior years. I also can't imagine a Marriott resort without an Activities Schedule on a permanent basis, but maybe for one year in a desperate situation IF it solves the situation? Sure, but that's not what's possible here.

I do agree certain activities are core to the resort experience but the survey info posted much earlier in the thread asked about doing away with Nature Hikes and Wine Socials, neither of which I'd see as core activities or maybe they could offer them for a fee sufficient to cover their costs.

To address an earlier comment, If anyone thinks for a second that MVC won't walk away from a given resort management under the right circumstances, they must live in a state that's legalized something that's not legal under federal law. I'm sure they would not do so lightly but we've seen these statements before for Spicebush, Swallowtail and Vail. They would walk away from management still owning units there but I presume it would remove the enrollment and II MVC priority as it did with those other resorts I mentioned (before Abound). I know several of us have touted this resort as a great way to get a volume of Abound points for a lower fee but if I owned there, I'd be breathing a sigh of relief based on the apparent agreement to move forward and I'm happy for those that own there with exchange or points being the focus even if a higher fee than hoped for. IMO the resort/members need MVC far more than MVC needs the resort.

 

[dioxide45]

One related issue is whether it’s ever actually possible to have vomit that isn’t regurgitated.

Regurgitate vomit is even worse. It would mean you probably would have had to eat vomit to then regurgitate it?

 

[SueDonJ]

I do agree certain activities are core to the resort experience but the survey info posted much earlier in the thread asked about doing away with Nature Hikes and Wine Socials, neither of which I'd see as core activities or maybe they could offer them for a fee sufficient to cover their costs.

To address an earlier comment, If anyone thinks for a second that MVC won't walk away from a given resort management under the right circumstances, they must live in a state that's legalized something that's not legal under federal law. I'm sure they would not do so lightly but we've seen these statements before for Spicebush, Swallowtail and Vail. They would walk away from management still owning units there but I presume it would remove the enrollment and II MVC priority as it did with those other resorts I mentioned (before Abound). I know several of us have touted this resort as a great way to get a volume of Abound points for a lower fee but if I owned there, I'd be breathing a sigh of relief based on the apparent agreement to move forward and I'm happy for those that won't there with exchange or points being the focus even if a higher fee than hoped for. IMO the resort/members need MVC far more than MVC needs the resort.

It irritates me to no end that ANY resort activities which include alcohol are free. I think in some cases there's no cost to the resort, like with local purveyors providing the wine and using the tasters as a focus group. In that case, fine, have them, but note on the Activities Schedule that the provider isn't being compensated. Any alcohol that comes with a cost to the resort, charge for it.

Food, the same, except I think that kids shouldn't be charged for an ice cream sundae or candy for trick-or-treating or an Easter Egg hunt ... Those are fun activities for the kids and should come at no charge. But if families go to the Brauts&Beers or Oyster Roasts or whatever other meals are offered, then adults and kids need to be paying for that.

 

[Dean]

It irritates me to no end that ANY resort activities which include alcohol are free. I think in some cases there's no cost to the resort, like with local purveyors providing the wine and using the tasters as a focus group. In that case, fine, have them, but note on the Activities Schedule that the provider isn't being compensated. Any alcohol that comes with a cost to the resort, charge for it.

Food, the same, except I think that kids shouldn't be charged for an ice cream sundae or candy for trick-or-treating or an Easter Egg hunt ... Those are fun activities for the kids and should come at no charge. But if families go to the Brauts&Beers or Oyster Roasts or whatever other meals are offered, then adults and kids need to be paying for that.

I can't disagree with the ETOH portion and I don't disagree with the picnic portion other than I'd add a caveat that if there are sufficient subsidized either external or internal (marketing/sales) OR if there is sufficient utilization then I'm OK with it. Generally there is a charge for the food portion though generally it's a reasonable charge so hopefully it's pretty neutral from a cost standpoint. To a degree I think it's somewhat akin to the discussion whether a resort should provide EV charging. We've had this discussion in DVC circles for years as not everyone is going to use or care about every options. To add to my list of things that should be cut, IMO, would be midweek cleanings unless required by law. This is an area where one of my other timeshare systems, Bluegreen, does a much better and more user friendly job than does MVC.

 

[dioxide45]

It irritates me to no end that ANY resort activities which include alcohol are free. I think in some cases there's no cost to the resort, like with local purveyors providing the wine and using the tasters as a focus group. In that case, fine, have them, but note on the Activities Schedule that the provider isn't being compensated. Any alcohol that comes with a cost to the resort, charge for it.

Food, the same, except I think that kids shouldn't be charged for an ice cream sundae or candy for trick-or-treating or an Easter Egg hunt ... Those are fun activities for the kids and should come at no charge. But if families go to the Brauts&Beers or Oyster Roasts or whatever other meals are offered, then adults and kids need to be paying for that.

While I have no proof, I highly suspect activities that include alcohol actually have Marriott providing the booze and billing it back to the HOA activities budget at a marked up cost per bottle from the bar. Not what the HOA could go out and buy it for at the liquor store. While not a lot, it is more expensive than what many people probably think. It seemed that NCV had a daily social event that included a alcoholic rum punch and a non alcoholic drink.

 

[daviator]

While I have no proof, I highly suspect activities that include alcohol actually have Marriott providing the booze and billing it back to the HOA activities budget at a marked up cost per bottle from the bar. Not what the HOA could go out and buy it for at the liquor store. While not a lot, it is more expensive than what many people probably think. It seemed that NCV had a daily social event that included an alcoholic rum punch and a non alcoholic drink.

As points ownership grows and weeks ownerships decline – and I’m not sure how rapidly that’s actually happening, but it does seem to be the long-trend – I think the “wine social” and similar events have less and less value. These events used to be about meeting your fellow resort owners, the people who, like you, own at the property where you are staying and probably visit every year or two or perhaps even more often. They were often billed as an owners event, though that probably wasn’t enforced. But most attendees had a vested interest in the property, its amenities and upkeep, and you may even run into people you’ve met before if you and they vacation around the same time each year.

If most guests are essentially “transient owners” who own points but have no attachment to a specific property, then a wine social is just a bunch of strangers with no real connection between them getting together to drink wine with their own little group. I like wine as much (or more!) than the next guy, but the wine served at these events is usually not of sufficient quality to motivate my attendance. I would attend to meet and chat with fellow weeks owners of the property, I probably wouldn’t attend or care about meeting points owners who just happened to be there. It’s a different dynamic.

What is the purpose of these events once a property is dominated by transient points owners? Maybe I’m the only one who feels there is a different sense of community (or lack thereof) in a points-dominated timeshare world.

 

[dioxide45]

As points ownership grows and weeks ownerships decline – and I’m not sure how rapidly that’s actually happening, but it does seem to be the long-trend – I think the “wine social” and similar events have less and less value. These events used to be about meeting your fellow resort owners, the people who, like you, own at the property where you are staying and probably visit every year or two or perhaps even more often. They were often billed as an owners event, though that probably wasn’t enforced. But most attendees had a vested interest in the property, its amenities and upkeep, and you may even run into people you’ve met before if you and they vacation around the same time each year.

If most guests are essentially “transient owners” who own points but have no attachment to a specific property, then a wine social is just a bunch of strangers with no real connection between them getting together to drink wine with their own little group. I like wine as much (or more!) than the next guy, but the wine served at these events is usually not of sufficient quality to motivate my attendance. I would attend to meet and chat with fellow weeks owners of the property, I probably wouldn’t attend or care about meeting points owners who just happened to be there. It’s a different dynamic.

What is the purpose of these events once a property is dominated by transient points owners? Maybe I’m the only one who feels there is a different sense of community (or lack thereof) in a points-dominated timeshare world.

I would agree. Sheraton Vistana Villages has such an event. It is billed as an owner social, but they also include Sheraton Flex owners, which as you indicate are transient guests and may not have as much of a vested interest in the resort itself.

 

[bazzap]

As points ownership grows and weeks ownerships decline – and I’m not sure how rapidly that’s actually happening, but it does seem to be the long-trend – I think the “wine social” and similar events have less and less value. These events used to be about meeting your fellow resort owners, the people who, like you, own at the property where you are staying and probably visit every year or two or perhaps even more often. They were often billed as an owners event, though that probably wasn’t enforced. But most attendees had a vested interest in the property, its amenities and upkeep, and you may even run into people you’ve met before if you and they vacation around the same time each year.

If most guests are essentially “transient owners” who own points but have no attachment to a specific property, then a wine social is just a bunch of strangers with no real connection between them getting together to drink wine with their own little group. I like wine as much (or more!) than the next guy, but the wine served at these events is usually not of sufficient quality to motivate my attendance. I would attend to meet and chat with fellow weeks owners of the property, I probably wouldn’t attend or care about meeting points owners who just happened to be there. It’s a different dynamic.

What is the purpose of these events once a property is dominated by transient points owners? Maybe I’m the only one who feels there is a different sense of community (or lack thereof) in a points-dominated timeshare world.

I guess we are relatively fortunate in that all but one of our “home” resorts is primarily (Phuket) or totally (Europe) weeks ownership.
So we normally meet many of the same owners, often staying for the same weeks, every year.
In Mallorca, where the owner socials are in theory anyway limited to Club Son Antem owners, attendance is typically well over 100 regulars every week.

 

[Eric B]

Regurgitate vomit is even worse. It would mean you probably would have had to eat vomit to then regurgitate it?

That would be reregurgitated vomit.

 

[bizaro86]

That would be reregurgitated vomit.

I think you could make a case that it isn't actually vomit until it's been regurgitated once. On the way in the first time it's just called "food".

 

[Eric B]

I think you could make a case that it isn't actually vomit until it's been regurgitated once. On the way in the first time it's just called "food".

Actually, @dioxide45 had postulated eating it once again then again regurgitating it, which would make it reregurgitated. Similar to arguing with yourself in a bulletin board posting twice.

 

[SueDonJ]

As points ownership grows and weeks ownerships decline – and I’m not sure how rapidly that’s actually happening, but it does seem to be the long-trend – I think the “wine social” and similar events have less and less value. These events used to be about meeting your fellow resort owners, the people who, like you, own at the property where you are staying and probably visit every year or two or perhaps even more often. They were often billed as an owners event, though that probably wasn’t enforced. But most attendees had a vested interest in the property, its amenities and upkeep, and you may even run into people you’ve met before if you and they vacation around the same time each year.

If most guests are essentially “transient owners” who own points but have no attachment to a specific property, then a wine social is just a bunch of strangers with no real connection between them getting together to drink wine with their own little group. I like wine as much (or more!) than the next guy, but the wine served at these events is usually not of sufficient quality to motivate my attendance. I would attend to meet and chat with fellow weeks owners of the property, I probably wouldn’t attend or care about meeting points owners who just happened to be there. It’s a different dynamic.

What is the purpose of these events once a property is dominated by transient points owners? Maybe I’m the only one who feels there is a different sense of community (or lack thereof) in a points-dominated timeshare world.

I don't know why I have it in my head (meaning I could be completely wrong and it wouldn't be the first time) that the Wine Socials at either/both Barony Beach Club and SurfWatch are true tastings sponsored by a local purveyor who provides the wines and asks for opinions But if that's the case I wouldn't think it matters if the participants are owners or transient points members. Otherwise I agree with you that these types of things don't have the same inclusive feeling that they did years ago.

 

[Theseus]

If I were to vomit honey, by definition this would be regurgitated vomit. And if it included honeycomb it might be substantive.

I love honey. Refried beans not so much. Been an entertaining thread though!

 

[WBP]

I think this has been an interesting thread, which is why I've tried to keep up with it. The natural tension between owners and the developer – and how that plays out with each property's VOA and its control – should be of interest to all of us.

One might ask: if what you see on the plate is regurgitated vomit, why do you continue to eat?

Simple. My wife is a Forensic Psychologist, several years into a research project (with her Grad Students) on the psyche of a “target population” of certain internet forum participants. I have assisted her with the very few internet forum that I superficially follow (I only see these forum, when I log in; I receive no notifications, have no “feeds,” etc). Hence, I keep an eye on this forum.

Regrading regurgitated vomit, for those who may be interested, read about “aspiration.” You might want to read about vomit, and regurgitation, as well. I administer anesthetic agents to patients, for a living, and I can tell you a bellwether of our failures is aspiration (made worse by patients who profess to be “fasted,” and who have lied about their fasting). In fact, less than a week ago, we had a patient who, four times - - four times - - on four separate occasions - - stated that he was fasted for 10 hours, prior to his procedure. In fact, an hour prior to his surgery, he had “chips and a few beers.” I was smothered in his unanticipated vomit. Long story short, that genius was admitted to the hospital for aspiration, and R/o aspiration pneumonia.

 

[SueDonJ]

Simple. My wife is a Forensic Psychologist, several years into a research project (with her Grad Students) on the psyche of a “target population” of certain internet forum participants. I have assisted her with the very few internet forum that I superficially follow (I only see these forum, when I log in; I receive no notifications, have no “feeds,” etc). Hence, I keep an eye on this forum.

Regrading regurgitated vomit, for those who may be interested, read about “aspiration.” You might want to read about vomit, and regurgitation, as well. I administer anesthetic agents to patients, for a living, and I can tell you a bellwether of our failures is aspiration (made worse by patients who profess to be “fasted,” and who have lied about their fasting). In fact, less than a week ago, we had a patient who, four times - - four times - - on four separate occasions - - stated that he was fasted for 10 hours, prior to his procedure. In fact, an hour prior to his surgery, he had “chips and a few beers.” I was smothered in his unanticipated vomit. Long story short, that genius was admitted to the hospital for aspiration, and R/o aspiration pneumonia.

Oh right, the old "ignore me and my nonsense, I'm just here harvesting you as test subjects for my wife's never-ending graduate program research study."

All indications are, she has all she should need sitting right beside her on the couch.

 

[dioxide45]

Simple. My wife is a Forensic Psychologist, several years into a research project (with her Grad Students) on the psyche of a “target population” of certain internet forum participants. I have assisted her with the very few internet forum that I superficially follow (I only see these forum, when I log in; I receive no notifications, have no “feeds,” etc). Hence, I keep an eye on this forum.

So your wife gets your one sided biased view of the forum and discussion? Getting second hand information doesn't seem like the best way to do a research study.

 

[WBP]

So your wife gets your one sided biased view of the forum and discussion? Getting second hand information doesn't seem like the best way to do a research study.

Far from the case. My wife's research was approved following a rigorous review process, including its funding source, academic medical center, and medical school review Boards. When they publish their findings, they will be publish their findings in a respected peer-reviewed, scientific journal.

My wife’s Research Assistants follow certain internet forum, and select people on those forum. I am not up to speed on their methods, as that rabbit hole is far from my discipline/comprehension. They (nor my wife) talk to me about their observations or findings, but, I can say, with certainty, that they are getting to the DNA of their target population.

 

[davidvel]

Far from the case. My wife's research was approved following a rigorous review process, including its funding source, academic medical center, and medical school review Boards. When they publish their findings, they will be publish their findings in a respected peer-reviewed, scientific journal.

My wife’s Research Assistants follow certain internet forum, and select people on those forum. I am not up to speed on their methods, as that rabbit hole is far from my discipline/comprehension. They (nor my wife) talk to me about their observations or findings, but, I can say, with certainty, that they are getting to the DNA of their target population.

Ok, got it, makes perfect sense why you post here. Wife's research study. Yep, case closed.

 

[daviator]

Ok, got it, makes perfect sense why you post here. Wife's research study. Yep, case closed.

I always thought that research studies generally required consent from those participating, overseen by an ethics review board. But it sounds like we are unwitting participants. I guess I’m thinking of medical studies and perhaps the standards for other studies are less rigorous.