Wyndham is closing a handful of legacy resorts - dedicated chart/tracker located in the first post for this unfolding set of events

[bizaro86]

Based on what is coming out of the communications to owners and resulting votes, owners are going to be refunded their 2026 fees. There is no screw over job with this one. The bigger question is what happens if an owner already has a reservation for 2026 using 2026 points. I suspect they will cancel their reservation. What about people that have borrowed 2026 points for a 2025 reservation?

I think someone who paid their 2025 fees and banked the points into 2026 and then doesn't get any use of them would reasonably feel upset.

 

[paxsarah]

I am not sure that it will all play out that fast. Do we even know the timeline on when they plan to offer CWA swaps? I suspect any CWA swaps and potential deed backs to the HOA have to happen prior to bankruptcy filing. Though, maybe not.

I would not expect an owner who’s only owns at a closing resort(s) and isn’t accepting the CWA swap to have a Club Wyndham account after 12/31, regardless of how long it takes other processes to play out behind the scenes. No Club Wyndham account = no access to RCI to book with any previously deposited points.

 

[dioxide45]

I think someone who paid their 2025 fees and banked the points into 2026 and then doesn't get any use of them would reasonably feel upset.

That would certainly be an issue if they combined those 2025 banked points with 2026 points. I guess they have the option to accept a CWA swap. Perhaps Wyndham will offer some other option, like paying a certain dollar amount per 1000 to keep the reservation? Perhaps cheaper than the current price to rent one time points.

 

[paxsarah]

I think someone who paid their 2025 fees and banked the points into 2026 and then doesn't get any use of them would reasonably feel upset.

They have an option, and that’s to accept a CWA swap. Yet another option would be to borrow those points back into this year and travel before 12/31.

 

[dioxide45]

I would not expect an owner who’s only owns at a closing resort(s) and isn’t accepting the CWA swap to have a Club Wyndham account after 12/31, regardless of how long it takes other processes to play out behind the scenes. No Club Wyndham account = no access to RCI to book with any previously deposited points.

That seems to make sense. They would need to have some kind of decisions about CWA swaps by end of year. Can Wyndham move that fast?

 

[jp10558]

Actually that's not entirely accurate based upon what we have seen actually play out. That's like saying that because Congress has a majority, they can simply behave as though a law has been passed, prior to it actually passing, or ignore laws currently in force, prior to passing legislation that changes those laws.

No but they darn well can and do tell us what they intend to do / what law they would like to pass.

That's not how these processes work. The fact remains, until the HOA voting processes actually transpire, Wyndham cannot alter the current environment based upon assumption. It's always possible that the bankruptcy proceedings for a particular resort do not play out as expected, and therefore that resort cannot be removed from the system at end of year.

Wait, so all the stuff about being able to remove from Club Wyndham based on their internal estimation is wrong? I saw posted documents in this thread.

If Wyndham were to have removed that resort, and cancelled existing reservations, and then for whatever reason the resort doesn't actually exit the system, well, that would put Wyndham in a pretty big pickle IMHO.

I really fail to see how it'd be any more of a pickle than the one they're currently in with surprise cancellations of reservations once the vote transpires. Also, many of us would have even been happy with a notice of "Wyndham intends to exit this resort at the end of 2025. It is not set in stone but we expect reservations in 2026 to be cancelled. We'll know for sure in December." on the resort info pages and booking pages. Again, none of this is a lie, and would have solved a lot of the communication issues had it been done in June. Companies talk about plans all the time publicly, both for marketing and for investors. Including layoffs, restructuring, etc etc. I have yet to see anything that makes me think this is special.

 

[jp10558]

Using that thought process, you’re going to die someday. Why don’t we go ahead and bury you now? Same thing, right?

Using Wyndhams thought processes, no one should ever let anyone know that they're going to die someday. And no one should be able to buy life insurance or a burial plot ahead of time. This is silly.

 

[jp10558]

Yes, there are plenty of reasons and they’ve been listed in this and the other thread, ad nauseum. You just choose to ignore them.

These reasons are ignorable because they're obviously on their face not how the world works. If it did, Elon Musk still couldn't have announced Starship. Amazon could never have asked for a bidding war for a second headquarters. Layoff plans could never be announced. Taco Bell could never put up a sign "coming soon" till the building was open. There could never be a "for sale" sign on a commercial building. Like COME ON.

 

[Rolltydr]

However, it is an informed opinion.

Informed by what? Anger? What other corporate boardrooms do you sit in that you can use to compare how other corporations would have handled this any differently from a communications standpoint? I’m not a Wyndham shill. I have criticized them, especially, their sales tactics and IT proficiency, or lack thereof, numerous times. However, this decision and this process, seems to me to be very well planned, albeit, on a tight timeline. That is because Wyndham wants/needs to stop the bleeding, for itself, for the HOAs and for the owners. Your wish to have a longer time period, I assume at least 13 months so no owner would be deprived an existing reservation, would require the bleeding to continue for another year. The only other alternative would have been to announce it a year ago, when almost certainly, none of the entities involved were ready to so so and the plan was nowhere near complete.

 

[comicbookman]

That is very disingenuous. There is not a law that says you must keep people in the dark, rush a shutdown, or use Chapter 11 to close a resort. In fact, many many resorts closed via other means and several were posted in this thread. Even laws BTW are not some discovered fixed fact of the universe - they're created by people, and certainly can be criticized and under the proper procedures can be changed by people.

I am doing my best to not get legal but this is "hiding behind legalese". They are making up the book in so far as there are wind down options that are not this method. At best, the "book" is one made up by the law firm, and a different firm would have a different book. Not at all the same as a constitutional provision of the country IMO.

No, it is not "hiding behind legalese" There are laws, some state, some federal that control when you can disclose things as a corporation and they get even more complicated when you through in bankruptcy. So, your second sentence is factually incorrect. The book is how they can and cannot act based on interpreting those laws by a very experienced law firm. Your dislike of the result, and mine, do not change the legal obligations relating to corporate behavior, as much as you would like for it to. Your "not getting legal" but complete dismissal of the role the high-priced law firm Wyndham has hired is disingenuous at best. Yes, it is possible a different firm would have different book, but likely the firm near the top of the heap has it right. Equaiting your judgement or some random firm's interpretation with K&L Gates is a losing proposition. And yes, I stand by my analogy as your "humble" opinion ignores the actual conditions on the ground.

 

[Floridaman76]

OMG! This is the true definition of a first world problem. A few people only found out 4-5 months in advance that they need to change their New Years Eve party reservations.

This statement is so ridiculously dismissive. It's up there with "why'd you dress like that"?

 

[comicbookman]

I think someone who paid their 2025 fees and banked the points into 2026 and then doesn't get any use of them would reasonably feel upset.

They only need to be upset if they don't take the swap offer or pick up replacement points on ebay. In that case they are choosing to exit, so how is their upset reasonable?

Edit to add: annoyance certainly but upset seems unreasonable when they can avoid the problem at little or no cost.

 

[Rolltydr]

Using Wyndhams thought processes, no one should ever let anyone know that they're going to die someday. And no one should be able to buy life insurance or a burial plot ahead of time. This is silly.

Yes, it is. That was my whole point!

 

[jp10558]

And, if they announce those plans before they are actually fully thought out, or at least ready to execute, what happens to public confidence in that company when those plans require major modifications or, possibly, cancellation? It craters and they have a huge PR mess on their hands, and in some cases, a huge financial problem, which is exactly what Wyndham is trying to avoid. Doing it this way, they have a few disgruntled owners, such as yourself, but the project is very well planned out with each entity performing their tasks on the project schedule in coordination with all the other players, including the HOA’s, real estate company, courts, in some cases, third party resort management companies, etc. Some don’t like it, but something tells me you wouldn’t like it regardless of the communication process.

No, I don't care about these resorts. I don't own there, I never really intended to go there. If it was managed reasonably I'd be a little sad that "dots on a map" were going away, but I'd also think of it like a business decision - most of the resorts are kinda obviously not doing so well, and not in desirable places. The ludicrous excuses, like the BOFH flipping a calendar and blaming a computer outage on "sun spots" or "dancing bears", is the parts I find offensive. The bizarre use of "owner occupancy" rates instead of "low numbers of owners in good standing" is even worse communication, and seems obviously euphemistic. Like the saying goes, "Don't P*** on me and tell me it's raining."

My "skin in this game" is empathy for the oblivious owners who are intentionally being set up and kept in the dark because Wyndham can't be assed to be competent about this. I'm on TUG, I got over my surprise months ago. I'm on TUG, I know how to use the system and get deep analysis of any changes that might possibly impact me. I just find the lack of empathy for other owners very startling.

 

[Arimaas]

Informed by what? Anger? What other corporate boardrooms do you sit in that you can use to compare how other corporations would have handled this any differently from a communications standpoint? I’m not a Wyndham shill. I have criticized them, especially, their sales tactics and IT proficiency, or lack thereof, numerous times. However, this decision and this process, seems to me to be very well planned, albeit, on a tight timeline. That is because Wyndham wants/needs to stop the bleeding, for itself, for the HOAs and for the owners. Your wish to have a longer time period, I assume at least 13 months so no owner would be deprived an existing reservation, would require the bleeding to continue for another year. The only other alternative would have been to announce it a year ago, when almost certainly, none of the entities involved were ready to so so and the plan was nowhere near complete.

Do you just argue with me to argue?

Informed by my own opinions, research, education, and, well life. You're so busy arguing your point and discounting anyone else's opinions, you forget what you say, and don't read my posts carefully. It's your opinion that Wyndham did all they can here. It's my opinion that they didn't. Both of us don't know the facts Wyndham used to make their decisions. I never said anything about 13 months. That is you assuming my "wishes" wrong, yet again. By the way, I'm not angry at all. I've said myself, ad nauseum, that I was looking to dump a contract anyway. Do I wish it was the more expensive contract being taken out of my account and not the $6.30/1000 MFs one? Sure. But this is an easy out for me.

No one called you a shill. You accused me way back when of calling hitchhiker a shill (see post 53 in the now moved legal thread spun off of this). I'm sorry, but this is the last I will say to you on this topic.

 

[jp10558]

OMG! This is the true definition of a first world problem. A few people only found out 4-5 months in advance that they need to change their New Years Eve party reservations.

If that was the case, I'd be a lot less incensed. You're trying to have the timing both ways here. A few people will "find out" probably in December when "the orderly process completes" and Wyndham gets around to calling the people who's reservations they cancelled. If they'd told people months ago we wouldn't be talking about this.

 

[Colonial#1]

Not to nit-pick but Crestview is not at the summit. There's a subset of the older Ridge Top units called "Ridge Top Summit" that are just up the same road at a higher elevation than the Crestview units. So Crestview is close to the summit but not quite there. Crestview were the only units in the entire resort that were actually built by Wyndham not long after they acquired this resort. We've stayed in every section at Wyndham Shawnee over the years since it's only two hours away from where we live. We probably stayed at Wyndham Shawnee an average of 5-6 times per year for weekend getaways - particularly in the spring and fall seasons. This spot, while older, will be missed. We will continue to go to the Poconos - just via RCI most likely after end of year.

Thanks for correction... We never traveled the extra distance... Summit.
we also live 2 hours (Harrisburg/Hershey) from the Resort and have been coming here for 48 years. Maybe we'll be RVing more now.
This morning I had coffey at the inn and chated a bit with Charley (founder and owner of Shawnee Inn)... discovered i'm 2 years older...Ha Ha...

 

[Floridaman76]

Do you just argue with me to argue?

I think if you read their posts in this thread, you know the answer to that question.

 

[gravityrules]

The letters were generated by the representative law firm - from a template. That same firm is representing all impacted resorts/HOAs.

It's possible a 2nd/3rd tier timeshare system could scoop up Wyndham Shawnee. It's also possible it could be converted over to private condos. Heck, I'd seriously consider buying a unit in Crestview outright if the price was right - as is with everything included sitting in the unit - furniture and all.

If it's not working for Wyndham (based on the reported criteria of low occupancy and upcoming maintenance costs) why would it work for another TS system?

 

[comicbookman]

No, I don't care about these resorts. I don't own there, I never really intended to go there. If it was managed reasonably I'd be a little sad that "dots on a map" were going away, but I'd also think of it like a business decision - most of the resorts are kinda obviously not doing so well, and not in desirable places. The ludicrous excuses, like the BOFH flipping a calendar and blaming a computer outage on "sun spots" or "dancing bears", is the parts I find offensive. The bizarre use of "owner occupancy" rates instead of "low numbers of owners in good standing" is even worse communication, and seems obviously euphemistic. Like the saying goes, "Don't P*** on me and tell me it's raining."

My "skin in this game" is empathy for the oblivious owners who are intentionally being set up and kept in the dark because Wyndham can't be assed to be competent about this. I'm on TUG, I got over my surprise months ago. I'm on TUG, I know how to use the system and get deep analysis of any changes that might possibly impact me. I just find the lack of empathy for other owners very startling.

I would like to point out that at the stone castle HOA meeting no one used the term "owner occupancy" I think that is something that actually comes from this thread. The only term used was occupancy and in this case that was said to by about 60%. Those of us at the meeting took this to be the occupancy rate taken over the last year. They also specifically mentioned that delinquencies continued to increase. I don't know how you got that owner occupancy was a euphemism for owners in good standing. that is a serious bit of mental gymnastics.

 

[jp10558]

That same logic goes both ways, just saying. We aren't apologists simply because we are trying to see both sides and work toward better resolutions for all involved to the extent possible.

I don't think you're apologists exactly, I just think that claiming Wyndham was forced by the universe and the courts and the lawyers to have bad timing and absymal communications is on its face so obviously not in accordance with the world I experience that it's like Saddam's minister saying the coalition was being pushed out of Iraq when there were gunshots and tank rounds going off in the background of the video. You're not really doing this entirely as you at least admit in some posts on this thread that this situation is entirely of Wyndham's choosing and design. It may be one of a few bad options that they determined was least bad. That's just a normal disagreement. It's the claim that Wyndham is lacking agency in many of these posts that rankles.

 

[comicbookman]

I think if you read their posts in this thread, you know the answer to that question.

obviously, since he argues in circles, he is doing just to be annoying. I mean he can't even be bothered to become a tug member.

 

[Rolltydr]

My "skin in this game" is empathy for the oblivious owners who are intentionally being set up and kept in the dark because Wyndham can't be assed to be competent about this.

I’m sorry, but I had to laugh at the typo!

I just find the lack of empathy for other owners very startling.

People having to change vacation plans does not appear anywhere on the list of things that “startle” me. I do feel bad for them, but, come on, startling? A little dramatic, don’t you think?

 

[dioxide45]

If it's not working for Wyndham (based on the reported criteria of low occupancy and upcoming maintenance costs) why would it work for another TS system?

I would already put Wyndham in as s 2nd tier system. The only other ones out there that might be interested would be Capital Vacations. That said, and as you say, if Wyndham can't sell the properties as timeshares, how can someone else?

If they wanted to sell these as timeshares, they would have simply dropped them from Club Wyndham and sold any inventory they were holding to the some other company along with the property management rights. If they were to sell them free and clear to another buyer with owners getting paid out, it would be like starting from scratch with another timeshare company. That would require a large upfront investment by the purchasing company that wouldn't be necessary if they were buying as a timeshare with some percentage of deeded interval owners already.

 

[comicbookman]

I don't think you're apologists exactly, I just think that claiming Wyndham was forced by the universe and the courts and the lawyers to have bad timing and absymal communications is on its face so obviously not in accordance with the world I experience that it's like Saddam's minister saying the coalition was being pushed out of Iraq when there were gunshots and tank rounds going off in the background of the video. You're not really doing this entirely as you at least admit in some posts on this thread that this situation is entirely of Wyndham's choosing and design. It may be one of a few bad options that they determined was least bad. That's just a normal disagreement. It's the claim that Wyndham is lacking agency in many of these posts that rankles.

What is the experience you are relying on? Maybe if we knew what you are basing your declarations on, we might give them more weight. Hitchhiker is basing his comments on actual conversations with Wyndham and his experience working for a large law firm. I base my comments on my law degree and having worked at companies and government agencies where reveling things at the wrong time could cause legal issues.