What happens to Starwood's owners at mandatory resorts when others have sold out?

[Westin5Star]

I contacted two different people at Starwood corporate this morning via email with our issue. I already received a reply back that this was sent to the legal department and that I will get a reply with an answer. I will forward that reply as soon as I receive it. I do want to reiterate that I was definitely told by an executive at Starwood last week that there are not two different pools! The person that I talked to could have been wrong, however, if that was the case my email this morning would have been easily answered. Until then...

 

[DavidnRobin]

D&R --

Your documentation actually supports what Bill and I are saying. All float systems are based on availability -- that's never been the issue. The only remaining issue (at least in my mind) is whether or not Starwood is required to maintain two separate inventories. The sales rep told Westin5Star that they are not, but the statute is pretty clear:

If the timeshare plan has more than one class of timeshare interest, then the requirement must be satisfied within each class.

A use night counted to satisfy the requirement for one class may not also be counted to satisfy the requirement for a competing class.

-JG

Hey JG -

Sorry - I do not see how it supports it, and... I am not sure, but when I read about TS classes within the docs (as they are written) - they are referring to (for example) different seasons, and different VOI types (fixed, float, premium, etc.)

Again - if they were forced to keep a separate inventory units/weeks for non-SVN members (not mention ANYWHERE in the docs) - how would this work for float weeks? How could they possibly account for the variety of owners at any given point in time who are/are-not SVN members - and add in those who decide on their whim as to when to reserve - they would never be able to have SVN exchanges at 8 months.

Overall - I give up in this discussion - it doesn't have any gain what so ever for me - I was looking thru the docs for other things and was curious. I am not sure if anyone on the other side of this discussion even owns a resale V resort that this discussion even impacts - so I am not sure what the point is - other than to bash SVO (?)

If you or Bill, or anyone else, actually wants to read the docs and find the offending text is - I will be happy to send - it is large so one's email will have to accomadate. They go over every concievable issue in boring detail.

 

[jerseygirl]

D&R --

I completely agree that it's no longer a productive conversation! I'll attempt to clarify and then I'm done as well.

Sorry - I do not see how it supports it, and...

Your mention of 60 days (from your documentation) actually agrees with the statute I posted yesterday. This is completely different than the 8-month "date" that was used when this post started (and which was the basis for my disagreement).

I am not sure, but when I read about TS classes within the docs (as they are written) - they are referring to (for example) different seasons, and different VOI types (fixed, float, premium, etc.)

I'm sure you're correct about what the documents say in regard to different classes. But, I don't think their failure to identify "member" and "non-members" as different classes relieves them of the obligation to treat them as such. Just my opinion...

Again - if they were forced to keep a separate inventory units/weeks for non-SVN members (not mention ANYWHERE in the docs)

I mentioned this earlier, but I don't think they they're required to outline their specific procedures. But, I do think they're required to comply with state statutes.

how would this work for float weeks? How could they possibly account for the variety of owners at any given point in time who are/are-not SVN members - and add in those who decide on their whim as to when to reserve - they would never be able to have SVN exchanges at 8 months.

Every resale account is coded as such. They keep inventory for 12 (??) resorts ... it's a simple matter of keeping inventory for 24.

I am not sure if anyone on the other side of this discussion even owns a resale V resort that this discussion even impacts - so I am not sure what the point is - other than to bash SVO (?)

I said I don't have a dog in the fight, but as I thought more about it, I really do. I own 2 resale units at Broadway Planation, where, historically, most owners were not SVN members. But, they've been expanding and I'm sure the majority of new owners are SVN members. I'm sure many of these SVN members give up their BP weeks to exchange into Maui, Harborside, etc. I have no problem whatsoever with Starwood giving their exchanged units to other SVN members. But, I have a real problem with Starwood giving my unit to an SVN member at the 8-month mark since I don't have the reciprocal right to make the same exchange. I've read my documentation many times, and no where does it warn me that non-owners will have the ability to book my unit at the 8-month mark.

I also have the exact same situation with a PGA unit.

If you or Bill, or anyone else, actually wants to read the docs and find the offending text is - I will be happy to send - it is large so one's email will have to accomadate. They go over every concievable issue in boring detail.

Thanks for the offer, but I believe everything you're saying about the documentation. I only care about what they actually do at the reservation center.

It's really not my intent to bash Starwood. I think it's an excellent system -- I wouldn't own 4 weeks (albeit only one mandatory) if I didn't think so. But, their "voluntary" and "mandatory" practices are set up for one reason only -- to help them sell units. They're harmful to their owners -- and I'm always a little suspicious of companies with blatent "anti-consumer" practices. So, I'll just keep doing what I've been doing -- buying resale, taking my chances with II, etc.! And, if I find out they're letting SVN members book a prime summer week at BP from unreserved inventory of non-SVN members, I'll call those people who are handling the RCI case!

 

[KOR5Star]

THE INTERGRAL PART OF ANY OWNERSHIP IS BEING ABLE TO USE YOUR UNIT. Starwood's policy of taking my unit from me because I didn't reserve it by 8 months is (in Hawaii) illegal. They must allow the ability to use my unit up until 60 days. THey have taken the unit and not compensated the owner. Starwood could simply say they will give any owner who can't get into their own resort a banked week with II but they aren't saying that. They are saying if you don't reserve at 8 months starwood has no obligation to provide the use of the unit or any other compensation.

Let's back up a minute and go one step at a time.

Are you saying that you never signed any agreements regarding the usage of your unit?

When you bought the unit you signed a contract, putting your unit into the pool of units so you could have it float. It was part of the paperwork pile. The initial owner obligated that unit to the pool and the obligation is transferred with the unit.

If you didn't want a unit with that obligation (to be part of the pool and provide the ability to float in both time and unit location) you had the option of waiting for a fixed week/fixed unit owner to sell. It would have been more expensive, but you wouldn't be obligated to the SVN pool.

Is anything I wrote not true?

 

[Bill4728]

OK, I give up! You are right!!


Starwood can write anything they want into the CCR, even though it is clearly against Hawaiian law, they can make you do it.

I'm done

 

[KOR5Star]

OK, I give up! You are right!!

Starwood can write anything they want into the CCR, even though it is clearly against Hawaiian law, they can make you do it.

I'm done

Oh. Now we all completely understand your point.

 

[skim118]

When you bought the unit you signed a contract, putting your unit into the pool of units so you could have it float. It was part of the paperwork pile. The initial owner obligated that unit to the pool and the obligation is transferred with the unit.
..................................................
..................................................
Is anything I wrote not true?

The initial owner obligated his unit to the pool(SVN) and in return had access to that pool.

The issue in question is whether Starwood can put a week in pool and not provide anything in return to the resale owner.

This issue is not so clear-cut as you or your Starwood contacts imply.

 

[Pit]

When you bought the unit you signed a contract, putting your unit into the pool of units so you could have it float. It was part of the paperwork pile.

Not necessarily. I have purchased multiple resale units without any written contract whatsoever.

Surely, you are not arguing that Starwood documents trump Hawaii law, are you?

If you didn't want a unit with that obligation (to be part of the pool and provide the ability to float in both time and unit location) you had the option of waiting for a fixed week/fixed unit owner to sell. It would have been more expensive, but you wouldn't be obligated to the SVN pool.

This is irrelevant.

 

[BradC]

I'm still not sure how anyone feels like they should be guaranteed a reservation, regardless of whether they're mandatory, voluntary, resale, or any combination of the above.

As an extreme example, let's say I own a voluntary-resale week and wait until mid-December to make my reservation. Do you still feel that Starwood is required to hold a unit for my use? What if (nearly) everyone did that? There simply isn't enough inventory to handle all the requests from all the late-reserving owners.

I think we all agree it would be ridiculous to complain in this case that Starwood didn't hold a unit for me. But I don't see how that's any different from the situation where folks are stating that Starwood needs to hold separate inventory for voluntary-resale owners.

There is plenty of inventory for everyone at the beginning of the year, regardless of separate inventory pools. But even keeping separate inventory pools doesn't help everyone get a guaranteed week.

Actually, this has always been one of my concerns about timesharing. Assuming there are 52 floating-week owners of a particular unit, it requires an amazing game of musical chairs for all 52 owners to actually get a reservation. For the whole thing to work out, it really does require some subset of owners to lose out altogether (by either giving up or failing to make a reservation), since the odds of everyone falling into one of those 52 slots seems nearly impossible.

 

[KOR5Star]

Not necessarily. I have purchased multiple resale units without any written contract whatsoever.

Here's the verbage from the SVN Contract:

BINDING NATURE OF YOUR PROMISES. Each consent approval, acceptance, appointment, agreement, and promise that you make in this deed is a "covenant running with the land," and "equitable servitude" and a "lein". This means that your consents, approvals, appointments, acceptances, agreements and promises in this deed are binding on (i) you; and (ii) anyone who later owns the property or any interest in it ...

It goes on to give examples. The SVN contract is painfully clear and simple to understand. The terms "covenant running with the land" and "equitable servitude" and a "lein" are all recognized legal vehicles to bind and convey responsibilities associated with a property.

If a resale buyer is not fully informed, their only recourse would be with the previous owner, not SVN.

Of course, if you have no contract, all the previous owner has to say is they told you verbally. In fact, having no contract means there are no protection whatsoever. It's your word against theirs. It's possible that Hawaii may assume and expect the buyer to perform due diligence and any liabilities the previous owner has may not survive closing, leaving you absolutely no recourse.

The idea that some Hawaiian statute exists that demands a timeshare management company to offer all it's clients identical access to it's worldwide network of properties is a bit far fetched. State laws usually can only demand compliance within the State. It's jurisdiction usually ends at the State line.

 

[Pit]

There is plenty of inventory for everyone at the beginning of the year, regardless of separate inventory pools. But even keeping separate inventory pools doesn't help everyone get a guaranteed week.

Separate pools doesn't guarantee that every owner will get a week, much the less the week they want. Units may sit empty if owners don't book their units.

But that is quite a different result compared to owners who are unable to book a unit from their pool because Starwood has given them all away to non-owners at 8-months out.

 

[KOR5Star]

Actually, this has always been one of my concerns about timesharing. Assuming there are 52 floating-week owners of a particular unit, it requires an amazing game of musical chairs for all 52 owners to actually get a reservation. For the whole thing to work out, it really does require some subset of owners to lose out altogether (by either giving up or failing to make a reservation), since the odds of everyone falling into one of those 52 slots seems nearly impossible.

So true... especially if you've got school aged kids and are limited to school vacation weeks.

We were told they only sell 51 weeks and hold one week out per unit for renovations. I don't actually believe it.

 

[Pit]

KOR5Star

I don't disagree that coventants referrenced in the deed are transferred with the deed. That's different from a sales contract, which is not required to purchase a t/s (particularly among friends ).

However, I'm curious if the language you quote is from a V resort? The text makes it sound as if the SVN membership transfers to the new owner (which we know is not the case at a V resort). And, what say you if the original owner does not join SVN. Then there are no SVN commitments at all.

The Hawaii statutes were simply an example, posted by JG. Given that WPORV is a V resort, I'd say a very relevant example.

 

[KOR5Star]

I'm curious if the language you quote is from a V resort?

No. It's for WKORV, a mandadory resort.

But I would ass-u-me that the verbage would be the same. The verbage simply says whatever you agree to binds the next guy. It doesn't say what was agreed to. They could have agreed that membership to the SVN was for the first buyer only.

The Hawaii statutes were simply an example, posted by JG. Given that WPORV is a V resort, I'd say a very relevant example.

jerseygirl bailed out of the conversation before I had a chance to digest her position and comment. Since you bring it up, I'll do it here.

I believe jerseygirl took the statute completely out of context. She was selective in her quotes, but please view the document she refers to:
http://www.hawaii.gov/dcca/areas/pvl/areas/pvl/main/hrs/hrs_pvl_514e.pdf

514E-8.5 & 514E-8.6 are the sections jerseygirl quoted from. The sections refer to classes of time share interests and the One-to-one use-right to use-night requirement.

After reading the sections in their entirety, it will become clear it applies to what the timeshare seller can sell. They may not sell more weeks than they have. That's all it says.

jerseygirl was implying this statute guarenteed the end user/owner a one-to-one use-right, but it does not. The end user/owner's rights are not addressed in this section at all.

 

[Pit]

No. It's for WKORV, a mandadory resort.

But I would ass-u-me that the verbage would be the same. The verbage simply says whatever you agree to binds the next guy. It doesn't say what was agreed to. They could have agreed that membership to the SVN was for the first buyer only.

I don't think your assumption is valid. In fact, I would bet that the language is different for a V resort in that SVN membership does NOT transfer to the next owner.

After reading the sections in their entirety, it will become clear it applies to what the timeshare seller can sell. They may not sell more weeks than they have. That's all it says.

I disagree. It says alot more than that.

514E-8.6(b) The time share instruments shall contain provisions assuring satisfaction of the one-to-one use-right to use-night requirement for the duration of the time share plan...

These are requirements imposed on day-to-day operation of the time share plan, not just developer sales.

514E-8.6(c) The following criteria shall be considered in determining whether the one-to-one use-right to use-night requirement is satisfied:

(1) If the time share plan has more than one class of time share interest, then the requirement must be satsified within each class;
...
(3) A use night counted to satisfy the requirement for one class may not also be counted to satisfy the requirement for a competing class;

This says if the developer creates multiple classes of owners (e.g. SVN members and non-members), they are required to ensure that each class of owners has access to the use-nights owned within that class.

514E-8.6(d) This section shall not be deemed to prohibit the time share instruments from including provisions permitting rental by the association or the developer, or reservation and use by owners, of use nights which remain unreserved as of sixty or fewer days in advance of the use night.

Translation: The developer is allowed to offer owners and non-owners access to unreserved time with check-in of sixty days or less (but not at 8-months).

 

[KOR5Star]

I don't think your assumption is valid. In fact, I would bet that the language is different for a V resort in that SVN membership does NOT transfer to the next owner.

The verbage I copied only said that any binding agreements on the property are lasting... no matter who owns the unit in the future. It did not imply that any perks given to the first owner would also be given to subsequent owners.

I believe this is where the disconnect in understanding is rooted. You and jerseygirl believe since you're not a member of the SVN, neither is your unit. But the two ideas are separate and distinct. Your unit is bound to the SVN pool by it's original owner and that obligation travels with the unit, no matter who buys it. Membership of a person in the SVN is a perk given by Starwood. It is not connected to the fact that the unit is part of the SVN pool.

I disagree. It says alot more than that.

These are requirements imposed on day-to-day operation of the time share plan, not just developer sales.

This says if the developer creates multiple classes of owners (e.g. SVN members and non-members), they are required to ensure that each class of owners has access to the use-nights owned within that class.

No disrespect intended, but I believe you've completely misread the meaning of some of these passages.

Translation: The developer is allowed to offer owners and non-owners access to unreserved time with check-in of sixty days or less (but not at 8-months).

This is the only one we agree on, but you left out of your translation that fact that the developer can rent it. This is an 11th hour protection clause. It can be assumed that any units still available after 60 days are probably not wanted by owners, so they can be rented out to help differ the carrying costs for everyone... owners and property managment alike.

 

[Pit]

Your unit is bound to the SVN pool by it's original owner and that obligation travels with the unit, no matter who buys it.

This is only true at a M resort. I don't believe this is true at a V resort, where original owners are not compelled to join SVN and membership does not transfer upon resale.

Putting a non-SVN unit in the SVN pool, without giving the owner access to that pool would violate 514E-8.6(c)(1).

No disrespect intended, but I believe you've completely misread the meaning of some of these passages.

No offense taken. It reads pretty clearly to me. I think you are adding meaning which simply isn't there. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

This is the only one we agree on, but you left out of your translation that fact that the developer can rent it. This is an 11th hour protection clause. It can be assumed that any units still available after 60 days are probably not wanted by owners, so they can be rented out to help differ the carrying costs for everyone... owners and property managment alike.

I didn't leave out renters. The term "non-owners" includes renters.

This statute requires that inventory be held for owners until sixty days to check-in. How can Starwood meet that requirement and also make inventory available to SVN members at 8 months out? The only way is to maintain separate inventory pools.

 

[KOR5Star]

This is only true at a M resort. I don't believe this is true at a V resort, where original owners are not compelled to join SVN and membership does not transfer upon resale.

Putting a non-SVN unit in the SVN pool, without giving the owner access to that pool would violate 514E-8.6(c)(1).

I'd bet good money the units at voluntary resorts are bound to the SVN just like mandatory resorts. The only difference is the flexibility in the owner's membership.

We'd have to see the documents from someone that bought a volunatry resort from Starwood.

I can't believe Starwood would make a program that individual weeks could drop out of.

No offense taken. It reads pretty clearly to me. I think you are adding meaning which simply isn't there. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

So at least we agree that the other is adding meaning which simply isn't there.

This statute requires that inventory be held for owners until sixty days to check-in. How can Starwood meet that requirement and also make inventory available to SVN members at 8 months out? The only way is to maintain separate inventory pools.

Well, we just agreed to disagree about this. I don't think this statute says what you think is says.

Think about it. How could that EVER be true? Forget the issue of voluntary versus non-voluntary.... membership in SVN versus non-membership.

That statement could NEVER be true for ANY timeshare on the planet. This should cause you to pause and rethink your interpretation of that statute. If your interpretation results in something impossible, either your interpretation is wrong or the author(s) had their heads where the sun don't shine.

 

[Pit]

I can't believe Starwood would make a program that individual weeks could drop out of.

Starwood forces weeks out of SVN by making SVN membership non-transferable. They have good reason to do this, as it allows them to differentiate the developer product from the resale.

That statement could NEVER be true for ANY timeshare on the planet.

Apparently, I was not clear. Allow me to rephrase that....

The statute says a developer cannot release unreserved owner inventory to non-owners (i.e. renters, II exchangers, or SVN exchangers) until sixty days out. The owner is not bound by this statute, but the developer is. The developer cannot abscond with the non-SVN owner's right-to-use at 8 months out. Thus, separate inventory pools are necessary.

 

[KOR5Star]

Starwood forces weeks out of SVN by making SVN membership non-transferable. They have good reason to do this, as it allows them to differentiate the developer product from the resale.

Agreed. People drop out. Units can't. Units that were available to the SVN wiht the first owner are always available, even if sold and resold.

Apparently, I was not clear. Allow me to rephrase that....

The statute says a developer cannot release unreserved owner inventory to non-owners (i.e. renters, II exchangers, or SVN exchangers) until sixty days out. The owner is not bound by this statute, but the developer is. The developer cannot abscond with the non-SVN owner's right-to-use at 8 months out. Thus, separate inventory pools are necessary.

Forgive me, but I'm going to ask you to rephrase again.

This is the part that I just can't wrap my brain around. How exactly is the developer absconding with the non-SVN owner's right to use?

 

[Pit]

Agreed. People drop out. Units can't. Units that were available to the SVN wiht the first owner are always available, even if sold and resold.

Your distinction between people and units is illogical to me. Your suggesting that all units are available to SVN members even though they are not owned by SVN members. Can't be true. I can't prove you wrong, but I don't believe it.

Even if I accept what you say, not all first owners join SVN. So, there would still be non-SVN units.

Forgive me, but I'm going to ask you to rephrase again.

This is the part that I just can't wrap my brain around. How exactly is the developer absconding with the non-SVN owner's right to use?

Perhaps an example will help. For the sake of discussion, let's suppose that when sold-out 1) all WPORV owners are non-SVN members, and 2) all WPORV owners wait until 6 months from their desired check-in to attempt a reservation. Now, suppose that Starwood has allowed all weeks at WPORV to be reserved 8 months from check-in by SVN members (i.e. non-owners). The result is that no WPORV owners can use their week (nor can they go elsewhere within SVN, since they are not members). That is what I call absconding with the owner's right-to-use. No way that is legit.

 

[KOR5Star]

Your distinction between people and units is illogical to me. Your suggesting that all units are available to SVN members even though they are not owned by SVN members. Can't be true. I can't prove you wrong, but I don't believe it.

That's been by point from post number 74 in this thread. Membership of the owner has nothing to do with the fact that the unit is part of the pool.

Even if I accept what you say, not all first owners join SVN. So, there would still be non-SVN units.

I believe the only units not part of the pool are fixed week/fixed unit ownerships.

Perhaps an example will help. For the sake of discussion, let's suppose that when sold-out 1) all WPORV owners are non-SVN members, and 2) all WPORV owners wait until 6 months from their desired check-in to attempt a reservation. Now, suppose that Starwood has allowed all weeks at WPORV to be reserved 8 months from check-in by SVN members (i.e. non-owners). The result is that no WPORV owners can use their week (nor can they go elsewhere within SVN, since they are not members). That is what I call absconding with the owner's right-to-use. No way that is legit.

The original owner bound all subsequent owners to play by the reservation rules.

What you describe can happen to any home resort owner, whether they are part of SVN or not. It's first come, first serve. If we don't make a reservation fast enough, we could find ourselves without the ability to use our units.

Non-SVN members can exchange into II, if they are members. SVN members can exchange into II or within the SVN that year if a desireable week and unit are available. In this case, the SVN is exactly like II, except they aren't letting resale owners join SVN.

Currently, non-SVN members are not being discriminated against. They have the same exact opportunity to enjoy their home resort as any other owner. What you imply is SVN members should be discriminated against at their home resorts simply because they bought from the developer (at a much higher price) and received an extra perk... the ability to trade within SVN.

I think you guys are fighting the wrong battle. I've heard rumors of some resale owners being invited to join the SVN. I'd think if Starwood lets in one, they should have to let in everyone, otherwise it's discrimination.

 

[Pit]

What you describe can happen to any home resort owner, whether they are part of SVN or not. It's first come, first serve. If we don't make a reservation fast enough, we could find ourselves without the ability to use our units.

First come, first served is fine so long as there is no outside competition for reservations. The HI law referenced in this thread makes clear that the developer cannot release unreserved owner inventory to non-owners until sixty days out. SVN does that at 8 months. Thus the need for separate inventory pools.

Currently, non-SVN members are not being discriminated against. They have the same exact opportunity to enjoy their home resort as any other owner.

Not to make this political, but this is like arguing that gay people have the same marriage rights as everyone else (i.e. they can marry someone of the opposite sex ). While technically correct, your comment misses the point.

The point is that HI law does not permit the developer to allow competition for reservations, aside from other owners, until sixty days out. They can do this with SVN inventory, because SVN members have agreed to it. They cannot do so with non-SVN inventory, because the law prohibts it.

Again, this comes back to the distinction between units and owners, which requires someone with the actual paperwork from a V resort to clear up. I don't have those documents. Hopefully, someone that does will jump in.

I think you guys are fighting the wrong battle. I've heard rumors of some resale owners being invited to join the SVN.

This speaks to the original topic of this thread. When Starwood realizes they don't have enough inventory for SVN exchanges (due to resale drop-outs), they need to allow non-SVN owners into the club to increase the SVN inventory pool. I'm sure this will be done only as needed and by invitation. They don't want to let that cat out of the bag.

 

[Westin5Star]

I'd think if Starwood lets in one, they should have to let in everyone, otherwise it's discrimination.

Discrimination is legal! You can discriminate against fat people, ugly people, smelly people, etc.; just not protected groups and even then only in certain situations (employment and other misc.) qualify.

BTW, I still have not heard back from Starwood legal and its been two days. I will follow up by the end of the week if I haven't heard anything.

 

[KOR5Star]

First come, first served is fine so long as there is no outside competition for reservations. The HI law referenced in this thread makes clear that the developer cannot release unreserved owner inventory to non-owners until sixty days out. SVN does that at 8 months. Thus the need for separate inventory pools.

We can't talk about this without going 'round and 'round. I sincerely think you are misinterpreting the statute. The wording is pretty clear to me. Our problem is the wording is pretty clear to you too... only we have significantly different interpretations.

Not to make this political, but this is like arguing that gay people have the same marriage rights as everyone else (i.e. they can marry someone of the opposite sex ). While technically correct, your comment misses the point.

The point is that HI law does not permit the developer to allow competition for reservations, aside from other owners, until sixty days out. They can do this with SVN inventory, because SVN members have agreed to it. They cannot do so with non-SVN inventory, because the law prohibts it.

If what you claim is true, NO timeshare could open it's doors to anyone but owners until 60 days out. Think about that. It's impossible. This has nothing to do with SVN member or not. All timeshares would be effected.

Considering the costs of going to Hawaii and the necessity of planning ahead for airlines and such, this statue would effectively kill timeshareing in the State of Hawaii.

Either you have it wrong or the authors really screwed up.

Again, this comes back to the distinction between units and owners, which requires someone with the actual paperwork from a V resort to clear up. I don't have those documents. Hopefully, someone that does will jump in.

Yes, but I fear we lost everyone else on the last page. :rofl:

This speaks to the original topic of this thread. When Starwood realizes they don't have enough inventory for SVN exchanges (due to resale drop-outs), they need to allow non-SVN owners into the club to increase the SVN inventory pool. I'm sure this will be done only as needed and by invitation. They don't want to let that cat out of the bag.

I did a search, but couldn't find anything. I seem to remember reading that someone bought a voluntary resale and was offered SVN membership for something like $600. I remember reading it clearly, but can't find it.