WorldMark - Relative Use Value

[ecwinch]

This is a general question for all the WorldMark (WM) owners that frequent TUG and do not frequent sites where WorldMark issues are frequently discussed. And maybe even a broader opinion on the issue.

As most of you WM owners know, one of the key issues for some owners is the concept of Relative Use Value or RUV. Now this issue is very WorldMark centric, since I am not aware of another timeshare program that has something similar. Relative Use Value is a provision in the Governing Documents for WorldMark pertaining to the Developers right to set the credit allocation for new resorts that become part of WorldMark. Essentially the Developer transfers resort properties to WorldMark in exchange for a number of credits, which they in turn then sell as timeshare memberships. Now this is the provision of the declaration document that discusses Relative Use Value:

3.4(a) Allocation. Prior to recording or filing this
Declaration as to a Phase of the Property, Declarant shall allocate
to each Unit in that Phase the number of Vacation Credits required
for occupancy during different seasons of the year and on different
days of the week. Such allocation shall be based on the relative
use-value of the new Resort compared to existing Resorts, in
Declarant's reasonable discretion. Declarant shall notify Club in
writing of the schedule of Credits allocated to a Unit no later
than when the Unit is conveyed or transferred to the Club. The
total Vacation Credits allocated to each Unit is shown on Exhibit
"A" attached hereto. (emphasis added)

I am trying to figure out if this issue is as polarizing as I think it is. To some, this provision means that new resorts have to come into the system at the same credit allocation as existing resorts. So a brand-new resort should require the same number of credits per unit size and season as a resort built 10-12 years ago. Based on depositions from the Travelshare lawsuit, we know that the developer feels that "reasonable discretion" gives them the ability to set credit allocations based on the cost to build the resort. That if they cannot profitably build the resort, then it will not get built. Since real estate costs have increased faster than inflation, they need to charge more credits for a resort. Some are in the middle.

Just wanting to get a broader perspective. Would rather hear opinions on the issue rather than debating it. That gets done enough on other sites.

Thanks in advance....

 

[GregT]

Eric,

I am aware of the issue and do not disagree that there must be some adjustment to the credits required for newly-built units. It is intuitive to me that it is more expensive to build now than it was 10-12 years ago, and that must be recognized in the form of some combination of higher cost per credit as well as more credits for booking comparable size units.

Where I think Wyndham is pushing the envelope is by:

1) substantial increase in the actual cost to purchase a new credit, coupled with the higher credit values needed to book units that the "older" owners may not want to visit.

2) Increased pressure for the "older" buildings from the new buyers of WM credits, due the greater volume of credits that exist due to the new properties

I understand that WM justified the increased unit cost initially for the Hawaii properties about 9 years ago and received no opposition due to the perceived desirability of having Hawaiian availability. The trend has continued now with virtually every new resort, whether it's in a true premium location or not, and owners feel like the value of their ownership is being diluted.

It's tough stuff with no clear answer. I don't know how there couldn't be credit inflation, it is just unfortunate that there is no trust that this credit inflation is being recognized by the developer as punitive to existing owners and that the developer takes every opportunity to ensure that the impact is minimized (versus the appearance of taking advantage of the possibility).

Good luck to all!

Greg

 

[ecwinch]

Well after over two days with only one response, I am trying to figure out what I have learned. Is the lesson, one or some of the following:

1) We only have two WorldMark members on TUG?
2) This issue to so inflammatory that no one wants to discuss it?
3) This issue is to complicated that no one wants to discuss it?
4) This really is not an issue?
5) WorldMark TUG members only want to enjoy their WM memberships and not worry about the underlying issues?
6) This thread is a trap. Eric is just waiting to someone to post something and then he is going to beat them up?
7) Why talk about it, when there is nothing we can do about it?
8) There is only one 1 WorldMark owner on TUG that does not frequent WorldMark related sites?

I only brought this question up here, since the WorldMark site does not allow questions of the nature, and I am trying to get a gauge of what other owners feel.

Greg - I appreciated you sharing your opinion with me. By and large I would agree with you. The pendulum is shifted too far to one side right at the moment. It is tough stuff. But is also tough to figure out if this a small or large issue with the majority of the WorldMark owners. And without some discussion on the issue, I think it becomes like a defacto approval of what is going on. That this is not an issue for most owners.

 

[alwysonvac]

Don't forget to add reason #8 which you stated at the beginning

"This is a general question for all the WorldMark (WM) owners that frequent TUG and do not frequent sites where WorldMark issues are frequently discussed.

 

[Jya-Ning]

I know 4 + years ago, there were several threads talk about this. I believe at that time, the WM just add Galena?

I believe several old time WM owners was talked about it, if it is archived, you maybe able do a search. I know PerryM was involved in it a few times.

Jya-Ning

 

[ecwinch]

Don't forget to add reason #8 which you stated at the beginning

Great point. I will modify my post.

 

[melschey]

Well after over two days with only one response, I am trying to figure out what I have learned. Is the lesson, one or some of the following:

I don't think to many WM owners come here, I know that I seldom do because it seems to me that most people feel this is mainly for Wyndham(Formally Fairfield) owners. Anyway it seems to me that most of the people here are Wyndham(Fairfield) owners.

 

[cotraveller]

Well after over two days with only one response, I am trying to figure out what I have learned. Is the lesson, one or some of the following:

6) This thread is a trap. Eric is just waiting to someone to post something and then he is going to beat them up?

I think you got it!

Someone reported a while back that there are around 100 people registered here who identify themselves as WorldMark owners. A very tiny percentage of 270,000 WorldMark owners. There are probably a few more WorldMark owners who read but are not registered and some others who do not identify themselves as WorldMark owners.

You find very few WorldMark issue discussions here any more. When you do it often is WorldMark owners who frequent another WorldMark site and already know the issues talking among themselves. Or a topic gets started here and is diverted to another site. Whatever the reason, WorldMark threads here tend to die out rather quickly. Sometimes you will see something added to a WorldMark thread which looks like it was designed only to bump it up to the top.

 

[ecwinch]

I think you got it!

Someone reported a while back that there are around 100 people registered here who identify themselves as WorldMark owners. A very tiny percentage of 270,000 WorldMark owners. There are probably a few more WorldMark owners who read but are not registered and some others who do not identify themselves as WorldMark owners.

You find very few WorldMark issue discussions here any more. When you do it often is WorldMark owners who frequent another WorldMark site and already know the issues talking among themselves. Or a topic gets started here and is diverted to another site. Whatever the reason, WorldMark threads here tend to die out rather quickly. Sometimes you will see something added to a WorldMark thread which looks like it was designed only to bump it up to the top.

Fred,

I appreciate you making the point. We can disagree, but it seems like a WM owner has very few choices for owner to owner communication. Here, there, or the WM forum. Like I said in my original post, I not looking to debate the issue. Just looking to see what the general viewpoint is. I only put that option in there for comical relief.

Based on your experience with the Club, any suggestions on how to hear the opinions from a broader audience?

 

[cotraveller]

Fred,

Based on your experience with the Club, any suggestions on how to hear the opinions from a broader audience?

Not based on any experience with WorldMark, but based on experience with forums.

If you look at the number of registered users on a forum and then look at the active posters, you will find that typically somewhere in the range of 1 to 2 percent of the registered users make 90 to 95 percent or higher of the posts. That applies here and to every forum I have looked at. So trying to get opinions from a broad owner/user base on a forum is not going to work.

Forums are dominated by a few members. Frequently those members share common viewpoints so discussions are one sided. If an outsider steps in with different viewpoints they are made to feel unwelcome, either directly or indirectly. Except for a few, those outsiders stay a while and then figure it is not worth the effort and dissappear.

I don't know but I suspect that the majority of WorldMark owners are not very interested in the issues or politics of the club. They are interested in their vacations and little else. Trying to engage them in a discussion of the issues is like trying to tell the backyard squirrel to stay away from your bird feeder.

 

[ecwinch]

Not based on any experience with WorldMark, but based on experience with forums.

If you look at the number of registered users on a forum and then look at the active posters, you will find that typically somewhere in the range of 1 to 2 percent of the registered users make 90 to 95 percent or higher of the posts. That applies here and to every forum I have looked at. So trying to get opinions from a broad owner/user base on a forum is not going to work.

Forums are dominated by a few members. Frequently those members share common viewpoints so discussions are one sided. If an outsider steps in with different viewpoints they are made to feel unwelcome, either directly or indirectly. Except for a few, those outsiders stay a while and then figure it is not worth the effort and dissappear.

I don't know but I suspect that the majority of WorldMark owners are not very interested in the issues or politics of the club. They are interested in their vacations and little else. Trying to engage them in a discussion of the issues is like trying to tell the backyard squirrel to stay away from your bird feeder.

I have one of those bird feeders that spins the base around when the squirrel puts weight on it. So the squirrel goes flying off like a frisbee. It is cheap entertainment until the squirrel learns to avoid our bird feeder.

But I get your point.

Thanks

 

[BocaBum99]

Well after over two days with only one response, I am trying to figure out what I have learned. Is the lesson, one or some of the following:

1) We only have two WorldMark members on TUG?
2) This issue to so inflammatory that no one wants to discuss it?
3) This issue is to complicated that no one wants to discuss it?
4) This really is not an issue?
5) WorldMark TUG members only want to enjoy their WM memberships and not worry about the underlying issues?
6) This thread is a trap. Eric is just waiting to someone to post something and then he is going to beat them up?
7) Why talk about it, when there is nothing we can do about it?
8) There is only one 1 WorldMark owner on TUG that does not frequent WorldMark related sites?

I only brought this question up here, since the WorldMark site does not allow questions of the nature, and I am trying to get a gauge of what other owners feel.

Greg - I appreciated you sharing your opinion with me. By and large I would agree with you. The pendulum is shifted too far to one side right at the moment. It is tough stuff. But is also tough to figure out if this a small or large issue with the majority of the WorldMark owners. And without some discussion on the issue, I think it becomes like a defacto approval of what is going on. That this is not an issue for most owners.

You may as well have gone to a party and asked everyone's opinion on the formation of quadratic curvature wavefront distortion surfaces.

Actually, it worse than that. You go to Coyote Ugly in New York City. They give you the mike. You ask everyone their opinion on quadratic curvature wavefront distortion surfaces, but you put the caveat that no scientists or engineers can answer the question.

What you hear? Chirp, chirp, chirp, chirp......

 

[stang99_tls]

I'm still waiting for my one-time use credits. Then I'll answer you.

But I would say its a combination of #1-#8.

 

[ecwinch]

You may as well have gone to a party and asked everyone's opinion on the formation of quadratic curvature wavefront distortion surfaces.

Actually, it worse than that. You go to Coyote Ugly in New York City. They give you the mike. You ask everyone their opinion on quadratic curvature wavefront distortion surfaces, but you put the caveat that no scientists or engineers can answer the question.

What you hear? Chirp, chirp, chirp, chirp......

Valid point. I withdraw my request that scientists and engineers not respond the question.

 

[Born2Travel]

OK, I'll add my 2 cents - I believe new properties should come in with the same credits as the older properties. The costs should be made up by charging more for new sales or they should not build in places the club cannot afford. I didn't see this topic until today - sorry.

 

[robertr55]

As most of you WM owners know, one of the key issues for some owners is the concept of Relative Use Value or RUV. Now this issue is very WorldMark centric, since I am not aware of another timeshare program that has something similar. Relative Use Value is a provision in the Governing Documents for WorldMark pertaining to the Developers right to set the credit allocation for new resorts that become part of WorldMark. Essentially the Developer transfers resort properties to WorldMark in exchange for a number of credits, which they in turn then sell as timeshare memberships. Now this is the provision of the declaration document that discusses Relative Use Value:

3.4(a) Allocation....

I am trying to figure out if this issue is as polarizing as I think it is. To some, this provision means that new resorts have to come into the system at the same credit allocation as existing resorts. So a brand-new resort should require the same number of credits per unit size and season as a resort built 10-12 years ago. Based on depositions from the Travelshare lawsuit, we know that the developer feels that "reasonable discretion" gives them the ability to set credit allocations based on the cost to build the resort. That if they cannot profitably build the resort, then it will not get built. Since real estate costs have increased faster than inflation, they need to charge more credits for a resort. Some are in the middle.

You'll have to take my opinion on this with a "bunch of grains of salt" since I'm not yet a WM owner (going thru escrow after months of research here on TUG), but I think the expectation of most owners would be that they would receive "equivalent value" for a stay in a similar size unit based on location and season, and some of the MF's would be used to keep all resorts within a somewhat similar range of "niceness". In other words, if WM were managing 2 resorts "side-by-side" and one was newly built, even though I'd prefer to stay in the newer one (under the assumption it's nicer ), as long as the older one wasn't shabby in comparison, I'd simply try to get a reservation in the newer one next time. I'd also expect the reservations at the older resort to drop off in favor of the new one, hopefully getting the older one refurbished more quickly.

Hilton has managed to separate out some of their newer resorts (NY & the 2 on Oahu & the Big Island) and make them worth "more points", but they're also selling for higher prices and set expectations that they're significantly higher-end places to stay.

Ideally I would think that WM should set some form of standard to make sure all of their units are relatively the same "niceness" across resorts (and I know I'm already off-base here since I don't think this is true ) and new ones coming into the system should either be allocated based on the same number of points, or else if they're allocated at a higher level, be able to demonstrate obvious reasons why they're worth more. (I think Hilton gets away with it on their 3 properties because of location mostly, but they're also reported to be very plush places). And once a resort falls below the "standard", it would be slated for an upgrade to bring it into compliance.

Having said all that...it seems like this process is fairly subjective and would be pretty difficult to codify in a written governing document.

 

[mtribe]

Don't forget to add reason #8 which you stated at the beginning

This was the reason I did not post.

You may as well have gone to a party and asked everyone's opinion on the formation of quadratic curvature wavefront distortion surfaces.

Actually, it worse than that. You go to Coyote Ugly in New York City. They give you the mike. You ask everyone their opinion on quadratic curvature wavefront distortion surfaces, but you put the caveat that no scientists or engineers can answer the question.

What you hear? Chirp, chirp, chirp, chirp......

Boca, that is fantastic. :rofl: :hysterical:

It was very hard for me not to post because this is one of he the most important issues facing the club. I see it as more of a symptom that an disease. RUV is the primary place where the conflict of interest of a developer dominated BOD shows itself. RUV is probably the most complicated issue facing the club and has the widest divergence of opinion between existing owners and the developer. In a points system RUV is the owners equivalent of a deeded week in terms of protecting owners interests and right to a vacation week. Even among those that believe that RUV is intended as a protective mechanism for owners there is a divergence of opinion. In our governing documents there is no definition of what RUV means. The developer has interpreted it to mean everything is relative and that costs are an important factor. They believe we can do what ever we need to do in order to develop a resort at a good profit. Many owners believe that the key term is "use" and the usability and access to a new resort must be relative. This is a link to a very thorough analysis of RUV. It removes much of the hyperbole and tries to focus on facts. http://marci4worldmark.yolasite.com/credit-values.php

The developer has a very valid point that building resorts is EXPENSIVE and they need to find a way to facilitate growth.

Here is how the developer sees it:

Building a new resort costs $XYZ. X= number of weeks sold, Y= number of credits generated at a resort, Z= Cost per credit. When a unit is built the dollar development cost is set so you have three variables to play with when allocating credits for the new resort. If you need to get to $XYZ and $XYZ is a growing number then you have to adjust the three variables.

X must remain fairly constant because there are only 52 weeks a year. This number has risen a little, from 48 to 50 or 51 weeks per year, which is industry standard. Not much room for change left here. By moving from 48 to 50 weeks sold, it does reduce the amount of bonus time available and has a potential impact on maintenance and repairs.

This leaves only two variables which can be increased in order to reach the desired goal. It is easier to sell credits at the lowest price possible so the developer prefers to increase the number of credits generated. This is what has happened over the past 5 years, the cost per credit has risen slightly , (possibly not even keeping up with inflation) and the number of weeks sold has also grown slightly but these two increases are not enough to equal $XYZ. Hence the only way to make Z big enough is to raise the allocation of credits and then divide it among the entire resort.


Commentary
Moving from 48 to 50 but this change is not an entirely unreasonable to generate extra credits and help defray the increasing cost of a new resort. Bonus time is and always has been claimed to be a bonus and if we need to reduce that a little to get a new resort so be it. Increasing the number of credits per unit has a far greater impact. Many of the new owners coming in with the standard 6000 credit account size do not even own enough credits to reserve a unit for a week at the resort that generated those credits. This puts a great deal of pressure on the resorts that were in the club before this new resort came into being. This could actually be made palatable, though not great, IF the new resort were to be 100% booked with credits. If enough existing owners love the new resort and it is booked up then there is no negative impact. However each vacant night at one of these high cost resorts generates enough credits to book 2 nights at our standard resorts. If too many resorts come in at higher and higher credit values then this problem is compounded and more and more expensive units sit empty or are rented not using credits while all of the credit utilization is directed toward the "less expensive" units.

Owners Perspective
It is MUCH harder to nail down an owners perspective because there are so many variables. But the "hard core" stance is that the club is a separate legal entity which exists and is comprised of its existing ownership base and existing resorts. We have a BOD who has the responsibility to represent and protect our interests. Many owners point to industry standard here as well. When a new resort is built, say a Marriott, the cost of the new resort is paid for by the new owners. If you buy a red season 2 bedroom at a new Marriott you probably paid MUCH more than someone who bough a 2 bedroom Marriott 15 years ago. Moving between them is available if so the units are available. It does not cost the more for the older Marriott owner to reserve the newer one if there is availability in the reservation system. They always get a full week and it is simply a cooperative exchange of units. This should be no different for us. While we do not have a specific 2br "deeded" to us we should always be able to get a 2br among any of the resorts in the club. While we love new resorts and may even be willing to pay SLIGHTLY higher credits for extremely popular resorts it is very difficult to swallow the increasing difficulty many are experiencing and to witness the trend that is taking place.


Root cause of the problem: If the people developing a plan are the ones who approve it, it leaves room for the perception of being self serving and not looking at or protecting owners interests. If a group of "independent" owners served on the BOD and after thoughtful analysis and discussion, negotiated a middle point then perhaps some flexibility could be acceptable, though perhaps disappointing. As it is with, no oversight or even the desire to ask those questions many owners feel they are subsidizing the acquisition of new resorts and new owners with the end result of increased competition for the resorts they have always lovedc

 

[cotraveller]

If the people developing a plan are the ones who approve it, it leaves room for the perception of being self serving and not looking at or protecting owners interests. If a group of "independent" owners served on the BOD and after thoughtful analysis and discussion, negotiated a middle point then perhaps some flexibility could be acceptable, though perhaps disappointing.

In other words, you do not necessarily object to higher credit value resorts, you object to those who are setting the values.

The 10,000 credit red season two bedroom week should have been set as the floor or base value. A resort such as Depoe Bay, a stunning setting on the Oregon coast which came into the system in 1998, should have come into the system at a 20 to 50 percent premium. That would have fit the model. The booking pattern shows that the owners think the resort is a higher value resort relative to the others, it is one of the first to fill every year. But for whatever reason it was not the way things were done and it is almost impossible to change the resort credit values after the fact.

A premium would balance out the supply and demand. Those who wanted the premium location would pay the higher price for it. Those who wanted other locations would pay less. Would everyone be happy then? Of course not, you can't please all of the people all of the time. Some people are happy with the newer resorts. Some are not. C'est la vie.

 

[stang99_tls]

In other words, you do not necessarily object to higher credit value resorts, you object to those who are setting the values.

The 10,000 credit red season two bedroom week should have been set as the floor or base value. A resort such as Depoe Bay, a stunning setting on the Oregon coast which came into the system in 1998, should have come into the system at a 20 to 50 percent premium. That would have fit the model. The booking pattern shows that the owners think the resort is a higher value resort relative to the others, it is one of the first to fill every year. But for whatever reason it was not the way things were done and it is almost impossible to change the resort credit values after the fact.

A premium would balance out the supply and demand. Those who wanted the premium location would pay the higher price for it. Those who wanted other locations would pay less. Would everyone be happy then? Of course not, you can't please all of the people all of the time. Some people are happy with the newer resorts. Some are not. C'est la vie.

The reason that DB did not come in at higher credit values is because the original developer (Trendwest) understood that all units were to be equal and that only exotic resorts were to have higher credit values. If the club was originally built on the "premium" model, that would have been fine too, but it wasnt. So you cant go and change the rules because you cant make as much money as you used too.

 

[ecwinch]

A premium would balance out the supply and demand. Those who wanted the premium location would pay the higher price for it. Those who wanted other locations would pay less. Would everyone be happy then? Of course not, you can't please all of the people all of the time. Some people are happy with the newer resorts. Some are not. C'est la vie.

Fred,

I just want to add that based on the Travelshare deposition of Scott Grey, VP of Business Development, your comment is one he offers on the current credit valuation strategy:

"we want to price it high enough that the people that really want to go there can get in there. Not too low that you're going to get people -- we've got a lot of resorts that are getting used only because they can get in there."

Basically that credit pricing is used as a tool to moderate demand. Just FYI

 

[ecwinch]

The reason that DB did not come in at higher credit values is because the original developer (Trendwest) understood that all units were to be equal and that only exotic resorts were to have higher credit values. If the club was originally built on the "premium" model, that would have been fine too, but it wasnt. So you cant go and change the rules because you cant make as much money as you used too.

An alternate opinion might be that they were a door and window manufacturer and did not understand the timeshare industry. Resulting in them building an uneconomically sustainable model. Compared to the margins in their core business, that was fine when WorldMark used an opportunitisic model for adding resorts. But when Trendwest was forced to start building resorts from the ground up due to the size of the club, the "vulture" model broke down.

Ground-up development requires more capital, and capital naturally flows to the highest rate of return between similar risk levels.

 

[cruisin]

Fred,

I just want to add that based on the Travelshare deposition of Scott Grey, VP of Business Development, your comment is one he offers on the current credit valuation strategy:

"we want to price it high enough that the people that really want to go there can get in there. Not too low that you're going to get people -- we've got a lot of resorts that are getting used only because they can get in there."

Basically that credit pricing is used as a tool to moderate demand. Just FYI[/QUO

In Worldmark, Wyndham found the perfect mate to WVO, If it is nice and we can actually sell deeds to people willing to actually purchase this property, call it WVO, If we could never sell the resort on its own merits, call it Worldmark and sell the credits at resorts that do sell on their own merits. Anaheim may be the exception, but not sure if that was already in the pipeline before Cendant came along. I would love to see Tropicana turned over to WVO and have their sales people sell weeks there for $30,000 a pop.

It seems like RUV was put there to stop Worldmark from being a pyramid/Ponzi scheme?

 

[ecwinch]

Fred,

I just want to add that based on the Travelshare deposition of Scott Grey, VP of Business Development, your comment is one he offers on the current credit valuation strategy:

"we want to price it high enough that the people that really want to go there can get in there. Not too low that you're going to get people -- we've got a lot of resorts that are getting used only because they can get in there."

Basically that credit pricing is used as a tool to moderate demand. Just FYI[/QUO

In Worldmark, Wyndham found the perfect mate to WVO, If it is nice and we can actually sell deeds to people willing to actually purchase this property, call it WVO, If we could never sell the resort on its own merits, call it Worldmark and sell the credits at resorts that do sell on their own merits. Anaheim may be the exception, but not sure if that was already in the pipeline before Cendant came along. I would love to see Tropicana turned over to WVO and have their sales people sell weeks there for $30,000 a pop.

It seems like RUV was put there to stop Worldmark from being a pyramid/Ponzi scheme?

Yeah - Worldmark is Natural Light, and WVO is Heineken. But some people prefer Natty Light.

 

[PerryM]

Foggy founding documents...

An alternate opinion might be that they were a door and window manufacturer and did not understand the timeshare industry. Resulting in them building an uneconomically sustainable model. Compared to the margins in their core business, that was fine when WorldMark used an opportunitisic model for adding resorts. But when Trendwest was forced to start building resorts from the ground up due to the size of the club, the "vulture" model broke down.

Ground-up development requires more capital, and capital naturally flows to the highest rate of return between similar risk levels.

This is exactly correct - the window salesreps that cooked up WM did a horrible job building a timeshare system that actually works - it is riddled with bugs.

The developer, Wyndham right now, has to make this work and 98% of the WM owners probably know a lot more about on the formation of quadratic curvature wavefront distortion surfaces (fog on a window) than how WM's operating rules are missing key components.

It's amazing WM has hung together this long without completely falling apart.

P.S.
I've tried explaining this to folks on various chat rooms - I can't compete with the lynch mob yelling "Wyndham sucks" - that seems to be the preferred way to deal with this topic.

 

[cruisin]

I've tried explaining this to folks on various chat rooms - I can't compete with the lynch mob yelling "Wyndham sucks" - that seems to be the preferred way to deal with this topic.

Actually wyndham sucks so hard it creates a tornado, gotta get pretty loud to be heard over that!

or

Wyndham is sucking the life out of WVO and WM

or

..............