BocaBum99
TUG Member
cotraveller said:
So, you believe that WorldMark is a brand owned by Wyndham? I don't think that is legally correct.
-
TUG started 32 years ago in October 1993 as a group of regular Timeshare owners just like you!
Read about our 32nd anniversary: Happy 32nd Birthday TUG! -
TUG has a YouTube Channel to produce weekly short informative videos on popular Timeshare topics!
All subscribers auto-entered to win all free TUG membership giveaways!
Visit TUG on Youtube! -
TUG has now saved timeshare owners more than $24,000,000 dollars just by finding us in time to rescind a new Timeshare purchase! A truly incredible milestone!
Read more here: TUG saves owners more than $24 Million dollars -
Wish you could meet up with other TUG members? Well look no further as this annual event has been going on for years in Orlando! How to Attend the TUG January Get-Together!
-
Now through the end of the year you can join or renew your TUG membership at the lowest price ever offered! Learn More!
-
Sign up to get the TUG Newsletter for free!
Tens of thousands of subscribing owners! A weekly recap of the best Timeshare resort reviews and the most popular topics discussed by owners! -
Our official "end my sales presentation early" T-shirts are available again! Also come with the option for a free membership extension with purchase to offset the cost!
All T-shirt options here!
Worldmark abandoning their business model
- Thread starter PA-
- Start date
So, you believe that WorldMark is a brand owned by Wyndham? I don't think that is legally correct.
ragtop
TUG Member
PA- said:
Is there a place where you've posted the email you got back?
I'm not trying to argue with you; just to understand the written record of what you say the Board has actually decided.
QUOTE
Originally Posted by cotraveller
To consider WorldMark without recognizing their relationship with Trendwest is as absurd and ridiculous as considering Chevrolet without recognizing their relationship to General Motors. Just as it is Chevrolet by General Motors or Horizons by Marriott or Miracle Whip by Kraft, it is WorldMark by Trendwest. That was true in their beginnings and it is true today. Some may not like the relationship but it is a relationship backed up by legal reality. _________________________________________________________________
It certainly is BOARD OF WORLDMARK by Trendwest! I applaud all who are trying to make it better for the owners. Is there anyone associated with WorldMark the "club" that looks out for WorldMark owners? Obviously our millions of dollars in "club" dues each year cant even employ us 1 person! I looked up the word "club" in the dictionary:: a heavy stick, usually thicker at one end than at the other, suitable for use as a weapon; a cudgel: We pay trendwest millions, they can afford one whopper of a "club"!
Originally Posted by cotraveller
To consider WorldMark without recognizing their relationship with Trendwest is as absurd and ridiculous as considering Chevrolet without recognizing their relationship to General Motors. Just as it is Chevrolet by General Motors or Horizons by Marriott or Miracle Whip by Kraft, it is WorldMark by Trendwest. That was true in their beginnings and it is true today. Some may not like the relationship but it is a relationship backed up by legal reality. _________________________________________________________________
It certainly is BOARD OF WORLDMARK by Trendwest! I applaud all who are trying to make it better for the owners. Is there anyone associated with WorldMark the "club" that looks out for WorldMark owners? Obviously our millions of dollars in "club" dues each year cant even employ us 1 person! I looked up the word "club" in the dictionary:: a heavy stick, usually thicker at one end than at the other, suitable for use as a weapon; a cudgel: We pay trendwest millions, they can afford one whopper of a "club"!
PA-
TUG Member
ragtop said:
I emailed the board members and received a reply via email. I'll ask them for permission to post that reply, but I won't do so without permission. Why don't you email the 5 board members and simply ask them if they've conceded that they will no longer use Relative Use Value as the criteria for assigning credit values?
PerryM
TUG Member
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2005
- Messages
- 4,282
- Reaction score
- 2
TW; remember the Edsel?
I love the analogy of the car dealership – take the Edsel for example: http://www.edsel.com/pages/edsel60.htm now here is a shining example of how the developer knew more than the car dealerships or consumers.
How about in the 1980’s when GM decided to just stamp all their brands like, Chevy, Oldsmobile (There’s a blast from the past), Pontiac, etc from the same molds – they were identical except for the name plate and hood ornament. Once again a belligerent developer didn’t listen to their customers or dealerships.
TW has it’s own Edsels - the Midwest WM resorts – they are ghost towns – no one from the east and west coast want to visit cornfield resorts and folks in the Midwest want to vacation on the east and west coast.
When a relationship exists, mutual respect makes the relationship work – TW is a war with WM – how else do you explain NO EMPLOYEES in WM and NO say so in the operations of WM resorts.
The TW salesrep that tells Whoppers to Ma and Pa on a sales tour is the same TW organization that built the Midwest WM resorts and abandoned Florida as a place to expand and cover the eastern seaboard.
It’s time WM started wagging the dog – we have absolute control over TW if we want to – they know it and perpetually keep WM owners “Dumbed down” – just visit the “Official” TW web site and try to post the truth over there – TW employees and TW lackeys censor the truth and substitute TW salesrep truth – we all know what that means, lies, distortions, misinformation – anything to sell more WM credits to anybody via that web site.
Right now TW is a monopoly to WM and that needs to change – a management team who’s fiduciary responsibility is to WM owners needs to start that change.
Conclusion:
Just as the car manufactures didn’t listen to their customers and let the foreign car manufactures trample them so must TW heed the same stirrings of WM The Club - or face the same type of consequences.
P.S.
I don't know about you, but a 5 year moratorium in building new WM resorts feels good to me - the WM BOD would just reject every new resort for 5 years - then we can talk about hiring a WM management team. I could live with the 60+ WM resorts for the next 5 years - after that maybe dumping the sole construction contractor to open bidding might make more sense.
Cruisin,
I love your definition of WM the “Club” – I’m going to adopt that definition from now on; “a heavy stick, usually thicker at one end than at the other, suitable for use as a weapon” you made my day
I love the analogy of the car dealership – take the Edsel for example: http://www.edsel.com/pages/edsel60.htm now here is a shining example of how the developer knew more than the car dealerships or consumers.
How about in the 1980’s when GM decided to just stamp all their brands like, Chevy, Oldsmobile (There’s a blast from the past), Pontiac, etc from the same molds – they were identical except for the name plate and hood ornament. Once again a belligerent developer didn’t listen to their customers or dealerships.
TW has it’s own Edsels - the Midwest WM resorts – they are ghost towns – no one from the east and west coast want to visit cornfield resorts and folks in the Midwest want to vacation on the east and west coast.
When a relationship exists, mutual respect makes the relationship work – TW is a war with WM – how else do you explain NO EMPLOYEES in WM and NO say so in the operations of WM resorts.
The TW salesrep that tells Whoppers to Ma and Pa on a sales tour is the same TW organization that built the Midwest WM resorts and abandoned Florida as a place to expand and cover the eastern seaboard.
It’s time WM started wagging the dog – we have absolute control over TW if we want to – they know it and perpetually keep WM owners “Dumbed down” – just visit the “Official” TW web site and try to post the truth over there – TW employees and TW lackeys censor the truth and substitute TW salesrep truth – we all know what that means, lies, distortions, misinformation – anything to sell more WM credits to anybody via that web site.
Right now TW is a monopoly to WM and that needs to change – a management team who’s fiduciary responsibility is to WM owners needs to start that change.
Conclusion:
Just as the car manufactures didn’t listen to their customers and let the foreign car manufactures trample them so must TW heed the same stirrings of WM The Club - or face the same type of consequences.
P.S.
I don't know about you, but a 5 year moratorium in building new WM resorts feels good to me - the WM BOD would just reject every new resort for 5 years - then we can talk about hiring a WM management team. I could live with the 60+ WM resorts for the next 5 years - after that maybe dumping the sole construction contractor to open bidding might make more sense.
Cruisin,
I love your definition of WM the “Club” – I’m going to adopt that definition from now on; “a heavy stick, usually thicker at one end than at the other, suitable for use as a weapon” you made my day
Last edited:
PA-
TUG Member
cotraveller said:
If GM goes bankrupt, and the assets seized by creditors, what would happen to Chevrolet? It would be no more.
If Trendwest (aka Wyndhamvo) goes bankrupt and their assets siezed, what would happen to Worldmark? It would hire a new management company and make other arrangements for building resorts and selling credits, and go on with business as usual.
You see Fred, Trendwest doesn't own Worldmark. Did you know that we operate on a 1 year contract for Trendwest's management services and the club can get rid of them anytime they elect to not renew the contract? That's specifically stated in the management agreement, as quoted below:
4.3 Notice of Nonrenewal. The Club may prevent automatic renewal by the
vote or written assent of a majority of t h e Voting Power residing in Members
other than Declarant and providing written notice of nonrenewal to Manager at least sixty (60) days prior to expiration of the then current term.
4.4 Termination. This Agreement may be terminated for cause at any time
prior to expiration, provided that, if the cause constitutes a breach or default
of this Agreement which is capable of being cured, such breach or default shall not have been cured within 30 days following receipt by Manager of written notice of such breach or default. If Manager shall dispute a termination by the Club pursuant to this paragraph, the dispute may, at Manager's option, be submitted to arbitration i n accordance with the Commercial Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association.
Section 4.3 requires no cause. In other words, we can fire them for no reason if the owners wish to. As for 4.4, I believe that failure to adhere to the "relative use-value" clause would constitute cause. I also believe that the TOT kickback scheme would constitute cause. Those are my opinions, but section 4.3 is there in black and white.
As for developing resorts, there is nothing in the bylaws that would prohibit Worldmark from contracting with another developer. Also, Worldmark isn't obligated to accept any property from Trendwest. Here is a quote from the Declaration of Vacation Owner Program:
8. ANNEXATION OF PROPERTY The property may be enlarged to include an unlimited number of units, although neither Declarant nor Club is obligated to develop or annex any additional property.
Fred, when dealing with people that work for Timeshare companies (which unfortunately includes the majority of our worldmark board), it's best to disregard what they say, and instead rely on what's in writing.
PA-
TUG Member
PA- said:
Actually, it gets worse. My quote above is what SHOULD happen in the event Trendwest goes bankrupt. Unfortunately, due to the sloppy manner in which Trendwest has conveyed property and mixed Worldmark assets with Trendwest assets, a savvy bankrupt attorney could quite possibly seize Worldmark property if Trendwest were to go bankrupt. Worldmark may not legally hold title to some or most of the resorts we think we own. I've warned the board about all the irregularities, but they seem completely unconcerned.
Think the odds of Trendwest or Cendant going bankrupt are remote? Think PanAm, Enron, WorldCom, ....
mtngal
TUG Member
PerryM said:
It sure seems to me that a few very loud owners are at war with Trendwest, not the other way around.
And all this concerns me very deeply. I feel like I'm living in a scene from the movie Holiday Inn - guess which one. If WorldMark is so screwed up for all of you - why don't you sell and buy somewhere else?
PerryM
TUG Member
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2005
- Messages
- 4,282
- Reaction score
- 2
A simple solution awaits us...
Mtngal,
Why should the WM owner, who disagrees with the hired construction contractor, have to bend over and take it?
Why should the WM owner, who disagrees with the hired management company, have to bend over and take it?
Seems like this is bass ackwards – the hired construction company and management company needs to have accountability to the WM owners – that is not the status quo today. We need competition to solve these problems and NOT WM owners leaving.
When did the WM owners decide to turn over our Club to the hired help?
Why should we not have a fully staffed management team and take that responsibility from TW?
Why should we not do the planning for future resorts?
Why should we not establish the Credits calendar (Red, White, and Blue season)
Why should we not be the masters of our own Club?
Why not open the management contract to multiple vendors instead of just TW?
Of course, the answer is we should do all the above and as quickly as possible.
Why should I have to change when a simple “Readjustment” is all that is necessary to take back our Club from the hired help.
I am simply asking for market pressures to solve what is now monopolistic abuses.
Mtngal,
Why should the WM owner, who disagrees with the hired construction contractor, have to bend over and take it?
Why should the WM owner, who disagrees with the hired management company, have to bend over and take it?
Seems like this is bass ackwards – the hired construction company and management company needs to have accountability to the WM owners – that is not the status quo today. We need competition to solve these problems and NOT WM owners leaving.
When did the WM owners decide to turn over our Club to the hired help?
Why should we not have a fully staffed management team and take that responsibility from TW?
Why should we not do the planning for future resorts?
Why should we not establish the Credits calendar (Red, White, and Blue season)
Why should we not be the masters of our own Club?
Why not open the management contract to multiple vendors instead of just TW?
Of course, the answer is we should do all the above and as quickly as possible.
Why should I have to change when a simple “Readjustment” is all that is necessary to take back our Club from the hired help.
I am simply asking for market pressures to solve what is now monopolistic abuses.
QUOTE
originally posted by Mtngal
"It sure seems to me that a few very loud owners are at war with Trendwest, not the other way around.
And all this concerns me very deeply. I feel like I'm living in a scene from the movie Holiday Inn - guess which one. If WorldMark is so screwed up for all of you - why don't you sell and buy somewhere else? "
_________________________________________________________________
At war with Trendwest/ If Worldmark is so screwed up? Trendwest and Worldmark should not be used interchangeably. I love Worldmark, I hate what Trendwest is systematically doing to it. It may take many years for Trendwest to make Worldmark worth getting rid of, but until then, I am hoping that owners will fight to keep what everyone loves about Worldmark. Are there any owners out there that really dislike Worldmark?
originally posted by Mtngal
"It sure seems to me that a few very loud owners are at war with Trendwest, not the other way around.
And all this concerns me very deeply. I feel like I'm living in a scene from the movie Holiday Inn - guess which one. If WorldMark is so screwed up for all of you - why don't you sell and buy somewhere else? "
_________________________________________________________________
At war with Trendwest/ If Worldmark is so screwed up? Trendwest and Worldmark should not be used interchangeably. I love Worldmark, I hate what Trendwest is systematically doing to it. It may take many years for Trendwest to make Worldmark worth getting rid of, but until then, I am hoping that owners will fight to keep what everyone loves about Worldmark. Are there any owners out there that really dislike Worldmark?
cotraveller
TUG Member
It seems that quoting the governing documents is the thing to do. Everyone quotes their favorites and ignores others. Here are a couple of quotes from the Vacation Program Agreement. This is one of the very top level documents in the legal structure that governs WorldMark and Trendwest. In these quotes Declarant refers to Trendwest Resorts, Inc. and Club refers to WorldMark, the Club.
Section 2.2 of the Vacation Owner Agreement reads as follows:
2.2 Future Phases. Declarant and Club hereby agree that Declarant shall have the exclusive right to add an unlimited amount of additional Property to the Vacation Owner Program, subject to the provisions contained in Section 8 of the Declaration; provided, however, that nothing contained in this instrument or in any other instrument shall obligate Declarant to annex additional Property into the Vacation Owner Program. With each transfer of Property to Club, this Agreement shall be deemed amended to include such Property and the security for Club?s obligations under this Agreement shall be provided or amended as required by Section 4 below.
Further, Section 3.1 reads:
3.1 Declaration. Club, as the legal owner or ultimate lessee of the Property in the Program and subject to the provisions of Section 8 of the Declaration, hereby agrees to execute and join in a Declaration of Vacation Owner Program or a Declaration of Annexation imposing upon all of the property in the Club (including, but not limited to any additional Units purchased by Declarant and conveyed to Club) the mutual and beneficial restrictions, covenants and conditions of the Program.
Those two statements are very clear. Section 2.2 says that Trendwest has the exclusive right to add additional units and resorts to the WorldMark. Not that they might be able to do that, not that they are required to do that, not that anyone else has to approve that addition, but that Trendwest and Trendwest alone shall have that right.
Section 3.1 says that WorldMark agrees to execute and join in a Declaration for those new units and resorts. It doesn't say that if WorldMark likes the new resort or if the owners approve of the new resort that they will sign the Declaration for the new resort. It states that WorldMark agrees to execute and join in a Declaration for the new resort.
If, as some have suggested, WorldMark were to refuse to sign the Declaration for a new resort they would be in legal violation of the terms contained in the Vacation Program Agreement. Or if, also as some have suggested, WorldMark hired a different developer to build a new resort they would again be in legal violation of the terms contained in the Vacation Program Agreement.
The protections provided by the governing documents have been referred to from time to time. That works both ways. Those documents provide very significant protection for Trendwest in terms of the rights they have.
Trendwest at war with WorldMark? Hardly. It is in Trendwest's best interest to maintain WorldMark as a top rated timeshare organization. That makes sales much easier. What mtngal said is closer. A few owners and even some who are not owners appear to be at war with Trendwest. It's a symptom of the anti-developer attitude.
As for the names WorldMark and Trendwest being used interchangeably, if you journey outside the world of the forums, outside the war zone, you will find that is very common. Technically Worldmark is not "owned" by Trendwest but most owners do not recognize the difference. Perhaps the relationship between WorldMark and Trendwest would be better defined as a marriage. While it might be possible to divorce the two from each other, as is often the case it would be a bitter and ugly separation with no winner. WorldMark would lose, Trendwest would lose, and most of all the owners would lose.
Section 2.2 of the Vacation Owner Agreement reads as follows:
2.2 Future Phases. Declarant and Club hereby agree that Declarant shall have the exclusive right to add an unlimited amount of additional Property to the Vacation Owner Program, subject to the provisions contained in Section 8 of the Declaration; provided, however, that nothing contained in this instrument or in any other instrument shall obligate Declarant to annex additional Property into the Vacation Owner Program. With each transfer of Property to Club, this Agreement shall be deemed amended to include such Property and the security for Club?s obligations under this Agreement shall be provided or amended as required by Section 4 below.
Further, Section 3.1 reads:
3.1 Declaration. Club, as the legal owner or ultimate lessee of the Property in the Program and subject to the provisions of Section 8 of the Declaration, hereby agrees to execute and join in a Declaration of Vacation Owner Program or a Declaration of Annexation imposing upon all of the property in the Club (including, but not limited to any additional Units purchased by Declarant and conveyed to Club) the mutual and beneficial restrictions, covenants and conditions of the Program.
Those two statements are very clear. Section 2.2 says that Trendwest has the exclusive right to add additional units and resorts to the WorldMark. Not that they might be able to do that, not that they are required to do that, not that anyone else has to approve that addition, but that Trendwest and Trendwest alone shall have that right.
Section 3.1 says that WorldMark agrees to execute and join in a Declaration for those new units and resorts. It doesn't say that if WorldMark likes the new resort or if the owners approve of the new resort that they will sign the Declaration for the new resort. It states that WorldMark agrees to execute and join in a Declaration for the new resort.
If, as some have suggested, WorldMark were to refuse to sign the Declaration for a new resort they would be in legal violation of the terms contained in the Vacation Program Agreement. Or if, also as some have suggested, WorldMark hired a different developer to build a new resort they would again be in legal violation of the terms contained in the Vacation Program Agreement.
The protections provided by the governing documents have been referred to from time to time. That works both ways. Those documents provide very significant protection for Trendwest in terms of the rights they have.
Trendwest at war with WorldMark? Hardly. It is in Trendwest's best interest to maintain WorldMark as a top rated timeshare organization. That makes sales much easier. What mtngal said is closer. A few owners and even some who are not owners appear to be at war with Trendwest. It's a symptom of the anti-developer attitude.
As for the names WorldMark and Trendwest being used interchangeably, if you journey outside the world of the forums, outside the war zone, you will find that is very common. Technically Worldmark is not "owned" by Trendwest but most owners do not recognize the difference. Perhaps the relationship between WorldMark and Trendwest would be better defined as a marriage. While it might be possible to divorce the two from each other, as is often the case it would be a bitter and ugly separation with no winner. WorldMark would lose, Trendwest would lose, and most of all the owners would lose.
PerryM
TUG Member
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2005
- Messages
- 4,282
- Reaction score
- 2
Reality check!
I’ll let the lawyers decipher the small print.
To say that TW is looking out for the best interests of WM is to ignore reality. TW makes blunder after blunder, violates state law and pays millions in damages/fines and WM should be happy TW hasn’t hurt us more?
WM needs a management team to represent 230,000 WM owners and NOT the slick salesreps who have trouble telling “Less than the honest truth”. This is the basic underlying problem with the current relationship and the WM BOD has that authority to demand a CEO be hired to run and manage WM for the benefit of the WM owners.
TW has it’s own addenda and if anyone here thinks that their stockholders are going to play second fiddle to WM owners they just don’t understand how capitalism works.
That’s the fundamental flaw of the existing relationship of TW (or whatever it’s called tomorrow) to WM – WM is far down the list of considerations that matter to TW.
I’ll let the lawyers decipher the small print.
To say that TW is looking out for the best interests of WM is to ignore reality. TW makes blunder after blunder, violates state law and pays millions in damages/fines and WM should be happy TW hasn’t hurt us more?
WM needs a management team to represent 230,000 WM owners and NOT the slick salesreps who have trouble telling “Less than the honest truth”. This is the basic underlying problem with the current relationship and the WM BOD has that authority to demand a CEO be hired to run and manage WM for the benefit of the WM owners.
TW has it’s own addenda and if anyone here thinks that their stockholders are going to play second fiddle to WM owners they just don’t understand how capitalism works.
That’s the fundamental flaw of the existing relationship of TW (or whatever it’s called tomorrow) to WM – WM is far down the list of considerations that matter to TW.
cotraveller
TUG Member
Deleted-duplicate post
Last edited:
cotraveller
TUG Member
Reality check - I agree. Despite all the problems that some moan and moan about, the reality is that WorldMark, by Trendwest, remains one of the top timeshare organizations. WM moaners helping WM moaners? That seems to be the theme. The anti-developer syndrome in it's prime.
There is a management team. There is a business plan. It's the team and the plan that brougt WorldMark from nothing to the 60 plus resort system it is now. A system with top rated resorts, low maintenance fees, top trading power, and except or a very small minority, highly satisfied owners. The sky is not falling, the world is not coming tumbling down.
remains one of the top timeshare organizations. WM moaners helping WM moaners? That seems to be the theme. The anti-developer syndrome in it's prime.There is a management team. There is a business plan. It's the team and the plan that brougt WorldMark from nothing to the 60 plus resort system it is now. A system with top rated resorts, low maintenance fees, top trading power, and except or a very small minority, highly satisfied owners. The sky is not falling, the world is not coming tumbling down.
PerryM
TUG Member
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2005
- Messages
- 4,282
- Reaction score
- 2
TW and WM are competitors!
Taking the same kind of folks who staff the TW Sales Gallery and calling them a WM Management Team is NOT my idea of folks who have the best interests of WM at heart. It just leads to the same distorted view of the world as the developer has – one that does NOT result in decisions which benefit anyone but the TW stockholder.
A prime example of this attitude is the guilty verdict a California jury brought in against TW for violation of California and Federal law – the fines and penalties were in the millions – this is the Management Team that should represent 230,000 WM owners? This is the shining example of a owner oriented Management Company that will defend WM owner’s rights and privileges? I think not.
I know I can't say we have an Ex-Con running WM, but just what do you call this guilty verdict? If this does not give you pause for concern, then we deserve exactly what we are now getting.
The MAIN problem is that WM and TW are competitors! TW sells a product (WM credits) for $1.80 each in the sales gallery and 230,000 WM owners can sell the same identical product for 70¢ a WM credit (Resale). We should believe that TW has our best interests at heart? I think not.
The reason the founding fathers of TW and WM made two separate organizations is to separate the sales side from the operational side. Once TW purchases/develops a resort and then turns that new property over to WM 100% paid off, it then gets to sell those WM credits for any amount of money it can extort out of Ma and Pa in that sales office.
That’s where TW’s ownership ends – WM then takes over and manages the resorts. The problem is that we have NO EMPLOYEES to do this. We, instead, ask the slick salesreps to run our club for us – this is insanity.
Our existing WM BOD is comprised of TW employees – hello, anyone smell a competitor running our organization?
It is insanity for WM to have NO EMPLOYEES and for the WM BOD to be staffed by TW employees – this is a conflict of interests that needs to be addressed.
Conclusion:
TW and WM are competitors; TW has the best interests of their stockholders at heart and treat WM like they would any competitor who could sell the same exact product at 1/2 the price. Anyone not realizing that this leads to horrific problems for WM just is looking at these problems from TW’s sales point of view – all is fine in TW land.
This is all very easy to prove - just set up an account on the "Official" TW (Not WM) web site at http://forums.trendwest.com/ubb-threads/ubbthreads.php and use the word RESALE and watch the TW lackeys redact your post - this is all the proof you need that TW and WM are indeed competitors. We all know how one competitor treats another competitor - it's not in a fiduciary manner which a real WM Management Team would act.
That TW web site is just a sales extension of TW’s sales gallery – so is the “Management Team” they now pawn off on us.
Taking the same kind of folks who staff the TW Sales Gallery and calling them a WM Management Team is NOT my idea of folks who have the best interests of WM at heart. It just leads to the same distorted view of the world as the developer has – one that does NOT result in decisions which benefit anyone but the TW stockholder.
A prime example of this attitude is the guilty verdict a California jury brought in against TW for violation of California and Federal law – the fines and penalties were in the millions – this is the Management Team that should represent 230,000 WM owners? This is the shining example of a owner oriented Management Company that will defend WM owner’s rights and privileges? I think not.
I know I can't say we have an Ex-Con running WM, but just what do you call this guilty verdict? If this does not give you pause for concern, then we deserve exactly what we are now getting.
The MAIN problem is that WM and TW are competitors! TW sells a product (WM credits) for $1.80 each in the sales gallery and 230,000 WM owners can sell the same identical product for 70¢ a WM credit (Resale). We should believe that TW has our best interests at heart? I think not.
The reason the founding fathers of TW and WM made two separate organizations is to separate the sales side from the operational side. Once TW purchases/develops a resort and then turns that new property over to WM 100% paid off, it then gets to sell those WM credits for any amount of money it can extort out of Ma and Pa in that sales office.
That’s where TW’s ownership ends – WM then takes over and manages the resorts. The problem is that we have NO EMPLOYEES to do this. We, instead, ask the slick salesreps to run our club for us – this is insanity.
Our existing WM BOD is comprised of TW employees – hello, anyone smell a competitor running our organization?
It is insanity for WM to have NO EMPLOYEES and for the WM BOD to be staffed by TW employees – this is a conflict of interests that needs to be addressed.
Conclusion:
TW and WM are competitors; TW has the best interests of their stockholders at heart and treat WM like they would any competitor who could sell the same exact product at 1/2 the price. Anyone not realizing that this leads to horrific problems for WM just is looking at these problems from TW’s sales point of view – all is fine in TW land.
This is all very easy to prove - just set up an account on the "Official" TW (Not WM) web site at http://forums.trendwest.com/ubb-threads/ubbthreads.php and use the word RESALE and watch the TW lackeys redact your post - this is all the proof you need that TW and WM are indeed competitors. We all know how one competitor treats another competitor - it's not in a fiduciary manner which a real WM Management Team would act.
That TW web site is just a sales extension of TW’s sales gallery – so is the “Management Team” they now pawn off on us.
Last edited:
cotraveller said:
Yes, and you picked your favorite section, but ignored one key point within it.
cotraveller said:
Yep, 2.2 says that TW has the exclusive right to add more units.. Nope, Mariott can't, Sunterra can't, Disney can't, etc.. However, you skipped the little part right after it: "subject to the provisions contained in Section 8 of the Declaration". If you go back in this thread a bit, you'll find Section 8 quoted and it says, "The property may be enlarged to include an unlimited number of units, although neither Declarant nor Club is obligated to develop or annex any additional property."
Basically 2.2 grants TW exclusivity as a developer, to offer up new properties to WM, but, subject to Section 8's non-obligation clause, WM is NOT obligated to simply accept anything they offer.
cotraveller said:
Oops.. there's that pesky, "subject to the provisions of Section 8 of the Declaration" part again. Basically all 3.1 means is that for any new properties that WorldMark decides to accept into the Club, they agree to execute another one of these Declarations. Since it also references Section 8, that doesn't mean they are just blindly forced to sign any Declaration put in front of them.
cotraveller said:
Nope, they'd simply be exercising their rights under Section 8.
cotraveller said:
And, in the same manner, make it so that WorldMark doesn't simply have to accept whatever TW tries to dump on them.
___________________
WorldMark Owners' Community -
PerryM
TUG Member
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2005
- Messages
- 4,282
- Reaction score
- 2
We need a moratorium on new acquisitions!
RichM,
Thanks for the translation – I knew there was another side to the story but TW’s.
I think the first order of business for a WM owner controlled BOD is a 5 year moratorium on new acquisitions – 60+ are just fine now and until we hire a CEO and a management team we don’t need to add anymore cornfield resorts.
I'd venture to guess our resale price might actually go up instead of the past 3 years decline from 80¢ to 70¢ while TW's sale price increased from $1.55 to $1.80 - the resale market is shouting at us that all is not right in TW/WM land.
RichM,
Thanks for the translation – I knew there was another side to the story but TW’s.
I think the first order of business for a WM owner controlled BOD is a 5 year moratorium on new acquisitions – 60+ are just fine now and until we hire a CEO and a management team we don’t need to add anymore cornfield resorts.
I'd venture to guess our resale price might actually go up instead of the past 3 years decline from 80¢ to 70¢ while TW's sale price increased from $1.55 to $1.80 - the resale market is shouting at us that all is not right in TW/WM land.
Perry said, "
Taking the same kind of folks who staff the TW Sales Gallery and calling them a WM Management Team is NOT my idea of folks who have the best interests of WM at heart."
_________________________________________________________________
Right on about MANAGEMENT TEAM! Its the other part that scares me. THEY HAVE A BUSINESS PLAN. TW has a plan! I am sure that they will not share their plan with us, so we can only go by how they execute it. By their actions, can anyone really believe that Trendwest thinks of our club as a part of that plan. Worldmark is certainly a tool "club" being used to execute the plan. I agree with cotraveller that owners are really pleased with Worldmark, but in regards to Trendwest, I think Stockholm syndrome has set in for many WM owners.
:Stockholm syndrome is a psychological response sometimes seen in an abducted hostage, in which the hostage exhibits loyalty to the hostage-taker, in spite of the danger (or at least risk) in which the hostage has been placed.:
See the danger...........
Taking the same kind of folks who staff the TW Sales Gallery and calling them a WM Management Team is NOT my idea of folks who have the best interests of WM at heart."
_________________________________________________________________
Right on about MANAGEMENT TEAM! Its the other part that scares me. THEY HAVE A BUSINESS PLAN. TW has a plan! I am sure that they will not share their plan with us, so we can only go by how they execute it. By their actions, can anyone really believe that Trendwest thinks of our club as a part of that plan. Worldmark is certainly a tool "club" being used to execute the plan. I agree with cotraveller that owners are really pleased with Worldmark, but in regards to Trendwest, I think Stockholm syndrome has set in for many WM owners.
:Stockholm syndrome is a psychological response sometimes seen in an abducted hostage, in which the hostage exhibits loyalty to the hostage-taker, in spite of the danger (or at least risk) in which the hostage has been placed.:
See the danger...........
PA-
TUG Member
cotraveller said:
Sorry, Fred, I didn't feel it would add anything to quote the 2 sections you did, since BOTH of them specifically are limited by section 8, which I did quote. Section 8, you might remember, says the club is not obliged to annex anything. Go back and read the 2 sections you quoted, you'll find that they both are limited by section 8.
ragtop
TUG Member
PA- said:
One might be skeptical that the WM BOD actually said it will disregard a key clause in the governing documents. Since you say they said that, it would behoove you to post their actual words, Phil, so all TUG readers can judge for themselves.
PA-
TUG Member
ragtop said:One might be skeptical that the WM BOD actually said it will disregard a key clause in the governing documents. Since you say they said that, it would behoove you to post their actual words, Phil, so all TUG readers can judge for themselves.
OK, I'm meeting with John Henley today, I'll ask him. But even if not, you can ask them yourself or anyone who attended that board meeting (Jim Pappas, Gil Bellamy, Nena Gray). It will be next week before I can post the email if I get permission, I'm in Seattle for the Worldmark board meeting.
mtngal
TUG Member
Thank you, Perry, for bringing everything in into focus. I really appreciate your honesty in cutting through all the rhetoric in this and threads on other boards recently. You’ve finally brought it all together and shown what this is really about.
Is it about better resorts? No. Is it about providing great vacations for owners? No.
It’s all about RESALES! This whole thing is about the price of resales and some body making more money.
It’s about several individuals being in competition with Trendwest, not with whether Trendwest has built good resorts for WorldMark, or whether WorldMark offers the vacationer good value.
On the one hand your post laments Trendwest raising their prices while the resale market has dropped, but on the other hand, there are others calling for Trendwest to raise their points even more to “cover the cost of new construction.” That call isn’t about being fair or providing a better product, it’s about shutting down Trendwest so that the only ones selling credits are the resellers. No wonder no one responded to my glass of water analogy – that’s exactly their point. They want all of us to be that guy lost in the desert, so their profit margins increase.
I have no problem with someone buying and selling memberships. I never have, never will. I have no problem with someone wanting to increase their bottom line. However, I DO have a problem when someone’s bottom line comes in conflict with MY bottom line.
What is MY bottom line? To have a great vacation. My highest priority is to have all kinds of places to go where I can have a good time and take lots of pretty pictures. Calling for a building moratorium, trying to kick Trendwest out, and so on, seems to me to directly threatens MY bottom line. So don’t be surprised if I take exception to what I see as a sure way to drive WorldMark, the Club, into the ground just to improve someone else’s bottom line.
My previous post mentioned that I felt like I was in a scene from the movie Holiday Inn. It was a far better analogy than I had originally thought – the whole situation is parallel. I just hope that the outcome for WorldMark has as happy an ending.
Is it about better resorts? No. Is it about providing great vacations for owners? No.
It’s all about RESALES! This whole thing is about the price of resales and some body making more money.
It’s about several individuals being in competition with Trendwest, not with whether Trendwest has built good resorts for WorldMark, or whether WorldMark offers the vacationer good value.
On the one hand your post laments Trendwest raising their prices while the resale market has dropped, but on the other hand, there are others calling for Trendwest to raise their points even more to “cover the cost of new construction.” That call isn’t about being fair or providing a better product, it’s about shutting down Trendwest so that the only ones selling credits are the resellers. No wonder no one responded to my glass of water analogy – that’s exactly their point. They want all of us to be that guy lost in the desert, so their profit margins increase.
I have no problem with someone buying and selling memberships. I never have, never will. I have no problem with someone wanting to increase their bottom line. However, I DO have a problem when someone’s bottom line comes in conflict with MY bottom line.
What is MY bottom line? To have a great vacation. My highest priority is to have all kinds of places to go where I can have a good time and take lots of pretty pictures. Calling for a building moratorium, trying to kick Trendwest out, and so on, seems to me to directly threatens MY bottom line. So don’t be surprised if I take exception to what I see as a sure way to drive WorldMark, the Club, into the ground just to improve someone else’s bottom line.
My previous post mentioned that I felt like I was in a scene from the movie Holiday Inn. It was a far better analogy than I had originally thought – the whole situation is parallel. I just hope that the outcome for WorldMark has as happy an ending.
Personally, I don't care what the resale price is and it has no bearing on my disappointment with the possibility of all future resorts having higher credit values than what seemed to be the model for the Club since inception.
If you truly want "all kinds of places to go", then it would seem you might care about this issue, also, unless you plan to continually upgrade your account size to keep up with rising credit values, otherwise we'll be stuck with dwindling availability at the existing lower-cost resorts.
___________________
WorldMark Owners' Community -
- www.wmowners.com
If you truly want "all kinds of places to go", then it would seem you might care about this issue, also, unless you plan to continually upgrade your account size to keep up with rising credit values, otherwise we'll be stuck with dwindling availability at the existing lower-cost resorts.
___________________
WorldMark Owners' Community -
cotraveller
TUG Member
The spin and moan continues. Read that section 8 again that everyone here seems hard over about.
neither Declarant nor Club is obligated to develop or annex any additional property.
WorldMark has never developed any property nor have they annexed any property. As stated in the Vacation Program Agreement those functions have been preformed by Trendwest. Trendwest places those properies in the WorldMark system which is a right they are guaranteed by that agreement. The founders knew what they were doing, that guarantee is solid.
You want to promote capitalism which is another theme that occurs here from time to time? Capitalism does not allow for you to take control of something that others have built up into a successful venture just because you don't like the way they do things. If you want to take control, raise the captial it takes to do that and buy them out. That's the capitalistic way.
neither Declarant nor Club is obligated to develop or annex any additional property.
WorldMark has never developed any property nor have they annexed any property. As stated in the Vacation Program Agreement those functions have been preformed by Trendwest. Trendwest places those properies in the WorldMark system which is a right they are guaranteed by that agreement. The founders knew what they were doing, that guarantee is solid.
You want to promote capitalism which is another theme that occurs here from time to time? Capitalism does not allow for you to take control of something that others have built up into a successful venture just because you don't like the way they do things. If you want to take control, raise the captial it takes to do that and buy them out. That's the capitalistic way.