Putting words in my mouth does not advance your point. My argument is that public companies are risk adverse. They stive to live by the motto of do no harm, where their definition of harm is making things harder or worse for the corporation. I have no doubt that they have been planning this for quite a while. I also have no doubt that they are following the advice of the law firm they hired to give them advice on this matter. Why is that so hard to understand?
Considering that at least for the Glade stone castle HOA a vote to dissolve requires a 100% vote of the owners and that they have non-responsive owners, holding a vote to dissolve would have been pointless. While Wyndham is not declaring bankruptcy, they are involved in the bankruptcy case in more than one way. As owners and as the management company. We don't know what they are allowed or not allowed to say based on that their management contract, but it would not be weird if it contained a no disparagement clause of some kind which also is influencing what they say. Your basic argument still comes down to you don't think there are any laws that are constraining Wyndham and you base that on the fact the fact that you don't like the current result.
OP table updated to indicate that the date for 10/20/2025 that we originally had labeled as Ridge Top HOA was and is actually for the Ridge Top Crestview HOA. The actual Ridge Top HOA vote has not yet been scheduled.
The CWA swaps are estimated to start later in October for the resorts that are beyond certain thresholds in the process. Owners will have 30 days to accept or reject the CWA swap offer. Each owner will receive a tailored email based upon their actual ownership/account, at least to some degree, similar to the tailored emails from the law firm template that the HOAs are using at the impacted resorts.
Then take the swap. Don't expect Wyndham to hold your account open once there are zero contracts left in the account. If you still have contracts left in the account after these actions, then your expectation holds more weight IMHO.
It's a choice of the better of two less than ideal situations - one is following legal advisories - the other is not. Wyndham chose the former, not the latter. I realize you don't agree - and we will agree to disagree and move on.
Does any company announce layoff plans a year or more in advance? Don't you think company execs are aware of layoffs far in advance of their notices? WARN notices require 60 days for this very reason, which ironically is about the same amount of notice Wyndham is providing to all impacted owners via these actions, and it's about as much notice as the larger member base will receive when the missive announcing all of this is released around end of month timeframe. Wyndham actually provided much more notice to their employees when compared to WARN, which is laudable no matter how anyone looks at it really.
From my Post #2188:
I would agree. Has Wyndham thought of all the possible scenarios that owners could be in and came up with a targeted offer for them? I would hope so. However, we are usually just left gnashing our teeth trying to figure everything out based on owner reports in the forum an on Facebook because these companies don't usually share the whole plan with everyone. They just notify those people who are impacted and what their options are.
That's an interesting idea. This could be handled with the Discovery mechanism, more or less. i don't think they will, but it does seem like they could.
They do make some decent coffee at Shawnee Inn for sure. Better than the little Country store just down the way - but that place has some decent breakfast and lunch options that we often partake while there. We will be back in Shawnee the first weekend in November, then for Christmas week.
it probably won't - but it wouldn't be the first time I've seen another entity think that they can make something work despite evidence otherwise.
If it were me, and in light of everything we know so far, I would just keep it and wait for them to give you their options. I assume that the vote to approve bankruptcy is a foregone conclusion, so the most likely outcome is you will get a few dollars when the resort is disposed of. If you were tor try to "sell" it you would almost certainly have to give it away, paying transfer fees, and possibly giving away a year of usage (which you won't have to give).
I don't think that's fair. The majority of owners are not TUGers. I picture some little old family who spent $50K on points at one of these places, not getting their points next year, because they do decide to exit but did roll points two years ago to 2026. Wyndham should hold the account open until those points are extinguished, or compensate the folks for them (which we don't know isn't happening yet). But either way, super not fair to the majority of folks that don't know any better, and were already taken advantage of once in the Wyndham sales room.
Also, there is another company that is infamous for never announcing anything until weeks, sometimes days, in advance of the impact. In most cases, it is news of new products, but they do the same with bad product or financial news (which is rare). That is Apple Corporation, the most successful company in the world.
In yesterday’s Laurel Ridge meeting, a similar question was asked. The Wyndham rep said that process is currently underway and that is why she couldn’t say exactly when everyone will be contacted.
Probably.
Asked, however the folks I'm dealing with don't work in the areas responsible for resort acquisition and future plans, so no immediate answers available at this time. Even if they had answers, bringing new resorts into the Clubs is a long arduous process. It was agreed that the Director on the call is going to take back the collective "northeast" message/concern and attempt to get more explicit guidance on any paths forward. Wyndham is hesitant to provide guidance on net new resorts as too often in the past the initial timeline given was not accurate. An example was given for the new SI resorts - the first of which was announced in 2023 in Tuscaloosa that would be ready in 2026 - it won't even break ground until 2026 now. Just one example. There was also a reemphasis that the membership continues to ask for more urban locations. The Wyndham corporate rep was not aware of any additional plans to exit other resorts, however she also freely admitted that these types of things are always subject to change in the future based upon what's best for the business, owners and the shareholders - particularly over the long term.
But, wouldn’t that also increase the costs for keeping the resort operational, and, potentially, delay the sell of the property, which would further reduce the funds available to pay creditors and owners once the property is sold?