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

[Floridaman76]

Not if those dots are in places with aging infrastructure and older units near end of life that have major special assessments on the horizon that the older owners have no interest in funding

Do you think the average owner knows or cares about the upkeep costs of aging infrastructure?

There's a ton of Wyndham properties that are 50+ years old that they don't seem to have issues maintaing, some even have low MF such as Canterbury. La Belle maison, Riverside suites, Canterbury fall into that category. Avenue Plaza and Midtown 45 are probably pretty close to that.

Maintenance costs are a Wyndham/HOA problem, not a problem for the general owner base. If this was an old style non-points ownership system you have more of a case, but using Skyline or BB, what percentage of deeded owners who own there vs "all other owners" vs guests stay there?

Sure some of these sites might be aging, and cost more to maintain than a 10 year old condo, but come on. Some of this obviously falls into "believe what the guy behind the curtain says".

That's a cop out.

Also, if Wyndham is using Club Wyndham owners to subsidize purchase of resorts within a whole new class which we would not have access to, if that comes to pass, is absolutely outrageous... that's skimming off the top. Embezzling even.

 

[comicbookman]

Do you think the average owner knows or cares about the upkeep costs of aging infrastructure?

There's a ton of Wyndham properties that are 50+ years old that they don't seem to have issues maintaing, some even have low MF such as Canterbury. La Belle maison, Riverside suites, Canterbury fall into that category. Avenue Plaza and Midtown 45 are probably pretty close to that.

Maintenance costs are a Wyndham/HOA problem, not a problem for the general owner base. If this was an old style non-points ownership system you have more of a case, but using Skyline or BB, what percentage of deeded owners who own there vs "all other owners" vs guests stay there?

Sure some of these sites might be aging, and cost more to maintain than a 10 year old condo, but come on. Some of this obviously falls into "believe what the guy behind the curtain says".

That's a cop out.

Also, if Wyndham is using Club Wyndham owners to subsidize purchase of resorts within a whole new class which we would not have access to, if that comes to pass, is absolutely outrageous... that's skimming off the top. Embezzling even.

aging resorts result in higher maintenance fees and Wyndham ends up owning a greater share of those resorts than they would prefer. your last comment on "embezzlement" is non sensical. Wyndham is a for profit company. Using those gross profits to start up a new system is a perfectly legal use of that money. Is it a good idea? Who knows, we will have to wait and see.

 

[HitchHiker71]

Do you think the average owner knows or cares about the upkeep costs of aging infrastructure?

They vote with their feet - meaning a good subset of these resorts have low owner occupancy - so yes - they care about staying in older resorts that don't deliver the same quality as the newer/larger resorts in better areas. As I've repeatedly stated, Wyndham is basing these decisions on a variety of factors, including the fact that a majority of owners have indicated they don't particularly like staying at these older resorts that aren't kept up as well as some of the newer/larger tourist related locations. TUG does not represent the majority of Wyndham timeshare ownership viewpoints, as I've also repeatedly indicated over many years. TUG represents timeshare "superusers" for the most part, which are by definition very much the minority of the ownership base.

There's a ton of Wyndham properties that are 50+ years old that they don't seem to have issues maintaing, some even have low MF such as Canterbury. La Belle maison, Riverside suites, Canterbury fall into that category. Avenue Plaza and Midtown 45 are probably pretty close to that.

Yes, but without exception every one of the resorts you just listed are either in major metro areas where tourism is popular, and there's a ton of activities surrounding the resort itself. You're making my point here.

Maintenance costs are a Wyndham/HOA problem, not a problem for the general owner base. If this was an old style non-points ownership system you have more of a case, but using Skyline or BB, what percentage of deeded owners who own there vs "all other owners" vs guests stay there?

Since the ownership base pays for those MFs via the local HOAs at each resort, I'd argue it's both/and. It's both a problem for Wyndham, and for the owners that hold contracts at these locations.

Sure some of these sites might be aging, and cost more to maintain than a 10 year old condo, but come on. Some of this obviously falls into "believe what the guy behind the curtain says".

That's a cop out.

The resistance to change on the TUG forums is palpable. Let's ask it this way, what would everyone prefer Wyndham do to remove older less popular resorts with low owner occupancy? Apart from 100% transparency, which we all know isn't legally permissible for various reasons especially in advance of HOA votes? Is the answer simply not to do so? If so, that's burying you head in the sand and practicing resistance to change over the long term, which is never a sound business plan. So let's hear your proposals as to how to remove older less popular resorts with low owner occupancy without upsetting at least a minority of the ownership base in the process. No matter what Wyndham does, they cannot make everyone happy. I for one am not going to demonize Wyndham for at least trying to manage change and innovate in the timeshare space. If I don't like where this is all going, I can always use other timeshare systems instead, or exchanges, for my vacations. I can even exit via CE if needed, if I'm really unhappy with their path forward. There are options for everyone involved here in other words.

Also, if Wyndham is using Club Wyndham owners to subsidize purchase of resorts within a whole new class which we would not have access to, if that comes to pass, is absolutely outrageous... that's skimming off the top. Embezzling even.

How is investing alongside SI embezzlement exactly? Be specific. Is this any different from Wyndham investing with Margaritaville to produce a subset of MVC resorts? Do you really think a company as large as Wyndham, with it's own army of lawyers, isn't going to ensure they are doing this properly?

 

[Sandi Bo]

A couple thoughts on timeshares that I have.

1) It amazes me that people, in 2025, will still buy developer points. I cannot imagine people spending that kind of money without reseaching on the internet (find TUG or FB or both) and going through with a purchase. And yet they do, obvious. But how can this be sustained on long-term (I suppose Margaritaville and now SI. But still... A tough product (that Wyndham has TONS of) to sell in today's day and age.

2) It has never made sense to me that I can purchase points at a resort with low maintenance fees and use them at a resort with high maintenance fees. The concept itself is hard for many to grasp (what, buy in Hawaii but use in Massacusetts)? Why are the maintenance fees lower in Hawaii, etc? Hard concepts to grasp. The idea I can use my points anywhere is great. However...aren't places like Bentley Brook really subsidizing places like Hawaii (and other high point per booking resorts). It really is an inverse relationship:
Bentley Brook: uses low amount of points but has high maintenance fees
Hawaii: uses lots of points to book but has low maintenance fees
It's really masking, quite well, the true issue - that your places like Bentley Brook are being booked at bargain prices, at the expense of the BB owners (and enjoyment of Bali Hai, etc)?

Do all of these resorts being exited or closed or whatever fit that model - low points to book with high maintenance fees? It's not really that it's costing more to maintain them, it's that the point system itself is incredibly flawed.

 

[paxsarah]

Apart from 100% transparency, which we all know isn't legally permissible for various reasons especially in advance of HOA votes?

I do now wonder if a lot of the consternation related to uncertainty could have been avoided (or at least reduced in duration) if Wyndham had waited to notify the staff at the affected resorts until the time HOA letters were sent out. While I guess it's nice to give the staff almost 6 whole months notice that their jobs are going away, waiting another 4-6 weeks on that would still have given them at least 4 months notice and word of mouth from staff wouldn't have been the first source of information to owners.

 

[paxsarah]

Bentley Brook: uses low amount of points but has high maintenance fees
Hawaii: uses lots of points to book but has low maintenance fees

The real thing here (and credit to Ron P who was the first person I remember seeing point this out) is that the distinction you're making isn't in overall maintenance costs - it's in the maintenance fee rate per 1,000 points. It's quite possible that the actual maintenance cost of a week in a similar unit and season - that is, figured using the number of points and home resort maintenance fee rate (BB points at BB and Hawaii points at Hawaii) - could be very similar between those two resorts.

 

[jp10558]

A couple thoughts on timeshares that I have.

1) It amazes me that people, in 2025, will still buy developer points. I cannot imagine people spending that kind of money without reseaching on the internet (find TUG or FB or both) and going through with a purchase. And yet they do, obvious. But how can this be sustained on long-term (I suppose Margaritaville and now SI. But still... A tough product (that Wyndham has TONS of) to sell in today's day and age.

I would have made that case once smartphones came out. If it hasn't happened in the what, 15+ years they've been popular and common, I really doubt it'll happen ever. Heck, back in the late 90s I was a teenager and knew "timeshares scammy" as general cultural knowledge. If that doesn't make people take a step back, nothing will.

2) It has never made sense to me that I can purchase points at a resort with low maintenance fees and use them at a resort with high maintenance fees. The concept itself is hard for many to grasp (what, buy in Hawaii but use in Massacusetts)? Why are the maintenance fees lower in Hawaii, etc? Hard concepts to grasp. The idea I can use my points anywhere is great. However...aren't places like Bentley Brook really subsidizing places like Hawaii (and other high point per booking resorts). It really is an inverse relationship:
Bentley Brook: uses low amount of points but has high maintenance fees
Hawaii: uses lots of points to book but has low maintenance fees
It's really masking, quite well, the true issue - that your places like Bentley Brook are being booked at bargain prices, at the expense of the BB owners (and enjoyment of Bali Hai, etc)?

Do all of these resorts being exited or closed or whatever fit that model - low points to book with high maintenance fees? It's not really that it's costing more to maintain them, it's that the point system itself is incredibly flawed.

I think that a lot of this is based on converting fixed weeks, and essentially layering an exchange on top of them. The alternative is the trust systems, like CWA and Worldmark. All us superusers are a lot subsidized by the masses. I don't think using arbitrage is unfair though, and I don't think the point system is flawed. It's essentially an exchange of weeks.

I'm not really sure they could do it any other way TBH - they can't change points values without all sorts of legal issues, and it'd really screw with sales. So over time there's drift - as people above said, there's always change. No resort at 40 years old is necessarily going to be as in demand as when it was new. And the resort areas may have moved with shifting cultural interests. Seasons are changing so there's longer or different shoulder and mud seasons. I think at least one of the places being shut down literally only had the golf course it was on as something to do or a reason to come.

And that goes back to @HitchHiker71 has been saying - people don't want en masse a local get out to the country resort anymore. They're not looking for the 3h drive, or even for many the 1 hour or less day trip locations. They're more willing to travel, and aren't that interested in the one week trip a year somewhere close and reasonably priced. They're going for the "luxurious" (for varying values of that) beach location, theme park, ski mecca etc. And I get it - my "close" resorts are 6-8 hours away (except, ironically for places in the Berkshires like Bently Brook, those are 3 hours) - I regularly drive 2-3 days to get to the resort locations, and of course I also fly. If you're flying, then the Ski resort like Bently Brook is competing with Vail Resorts all over the country. The golf resort like Fairfield Glade is competing with resorts near PGA courses, or resorts that are in areas with a lot more to do all over the place.

 

[Floridaman76]

Maybe embezzlement was a strong term and probably incorrect, but the sentiment I was using was Wyndham/T&L as a corporation is taking assets funded by it's owners (different from shareholders), and using that money to potentially build a whole new, separate system, which the people which funded those resorts, and built the equity those properties now would no longer have access to.

That doesn't seem unethical to anyone else?

This is not like PepsiCo buying KFC and Taco Bell and Pizza Hut with money earned by the Pepsi Soft Drink.

PepsiCo doesn't have the concept of "owners" like Wyndham/T&L (or timeshares in general) have. And while WYN has a fiduciary responsibility to it's shareholders, one has to assume us "club owners" are owed something when assets are leaving the system and not reinvested in "net new usable assets", but rather invested in a completely new, segregated system.

 

[comicbookman]

Maybe embezzlement was a strong term and probably incorrect, but the sentiment I was using was Wyndham/T&L as a corporation is taking assets funded by it's owners (different from shareholders), and using that money to potentially build a whole new, separate system, which the people which funded those resorts, and built the equity those properties now would no longer have access to.

That doesn't seem unethical to anyone else?

This is not like PepsiCo buying KFC and Taco Bell and Pizza Hut with money earned by the Pepsi Soft Drink.

PepsiCo doesn't have the concept of "owners" like Wyndham/T&L (or timeshares in general) have. And while WYN has a fiduciary responsibility to it's shareholders, one has to assume us "club owners" are owed something when assets are leaving the system and not reinvested in "net new usable assets", but rather invested in a completely new, segregated system.

Actually, it is no different from Pepsi buying restaurants. As long as Wyndham meets it's management obligations, the fact that there customers are called owners is irrelevant. Now, if they were shortchanging the HOA's and using the money to build new systems, then yeah that would be an issue. Once upon a time wyndham was part of a system that also owned hotels. Do you think all of the timeshare profits were segregated and only used to expand the timeshare system? Or how about buying T&L. That does not directly benefit the timeshare system. I fail to see how a magazine helps the system.

 

[bnoble]

It's quite possible that the actual maintenance cost of a week in a similar unit and season - that is, figured using the number of points and home resort maintenance fee rate (BB points at BB and Hawaii points at Hawaii) - could be very similar between those two resorts.

It's likely that the Hawaii week costs more, but the point/week ratio is even higher than the $/week ratio.

 

[HitchHiker71]

I do now wonder if a lot of the consternation related to uncertainty could have been avoided (or at least reduced in duration) if Wyndham had waited to notify the staff at the affected resorts until the time HOA letters were sent out. While I guess it's nice to give the staff almost 6 whole months notice that their jobs are going away, waiting another 4-6 weeks on that would still have given them at least 4 months notice and word of mouth from staff wouldn't have been the first source of information to owners.

This is definitely where the speed of the internet and almost immediate flow of information was either vastly underestimated by Wyndham during their planning, or they did realize the rumors would fly but still wanted to inform the employees with as much advance notice as was possible. If the latter, that's actually admirable in today's world really, where layoffs occur the day of notice, over the phone or in loosely put together meetings with not much planning, and with no advance notifications what-so-ever. I work in the tech industry, and we're literally seeing mass layoffs of some kind on a weekly basis, in some cases almost daily, for the past few months at least. In the tech sector, those layoffs often come with severance packages though, which at least softens the lack of notice a bit, whereas I suspect Wyndham is providing advance notice now, so as to not have to pay out severance after 12/31/2025, in addition to the fact that all of the employees would come to know about the resort closure anyways as soon as the HOA was informed.

 

[Roger830]

2) It has never made sense to me that I can purchase points at a resort with low maintenance fees and use them at a resort with high maintenance fees. The concept itself is hard for many to grasp (what, buy in Hawaii but use in Massacusetts)? Why are the maintenance fees lower in Hawaii, etc? Hard concepts to grasp. The idea I can use my points anywhere is great.

Wyndham created this situation by assigning more point value to book a unit when they created new resorts to encourage members to buy into those new resorts.

A week at Sea Gardens Ocean Palms built in 1999 is 140,000 points while a lower level week at Panama City built 2007 is 203,000 points as is National Harbor built 2009. Clearwater is 231,000.

So if a member buys 1 weeks worth of Panama City points they can book about 1 1/2 weeks at Sea Gardens. A week at Clearwater books about 1 2/3 weeks at Sea Gardens. There are some older resorts that require fewer points such as 88,000 where Clearwater books about 2 2/3 weeks.

 

[HitchHiker71]

Wyndham created this situation by assigning more point value to book a unit when they created new resorts to encourage members to buy into those new resorts.

A week at Sea Gardens Ocean Palms built in 1999 is 140,000 points while a lower level week at Panama City built 2007 is 203,000 points as is National Harbor built 2009. Clearwater is 231,000.

So if a member buys 1 weeks worth of Panama City points they can book about 1 1/2 weeks at Sea Gardens. A week at Clearwater books about 1 2/3 weeks at Sea Gardens. There are some older resorts that require fewer points such as 88,000 where Clearwater books about 2 2/3 weeks.

Yes, and as I said previously, by removing a subset of the lower points value older resorts from the system, what does that motivate owners to do? Buy more points to fund future vacations. If the overall points/day increases by removing older resorts, owners will need to buy more points to spend the same net amount of vacation days per year. Since the vast majority of owners still seem to buy developer points, despite sites like TUG and many FB groups and such, this play also results in Wyndham selling more points in the future, it increases demand for points purchases basically. This isn't the sole reason, as I said previously as well, it's many reasons all combined together.

 

[jp10558]

Wyndham created this situation by assigning more point value to book a unit when they created new resorts to encourage members to buy into those new resorts.

A week at Sea Gardens Ocean Palms built in 1999 is 140,000 points while a lower level week at Panama City built 2007 is 203,000 points as is National Harbor built 2009. Clearwater is 231,000.

So if a member buys 1 weeks worth of Panama City points they can book about 1 1/2 weeks at Sea Gardens. A week at Clearwater books about 1 2/3 weeks at Sea Gardens. There are some older resorts that require fewer points such as 88,000 where Clearwater books about 2 2/3 weeks.

In some ways though - all of this is working as designed. I guess it's likely, like others have said, that Wyndham never planned to run the resorts in perpetuity. So they can create these "high MF resorts" this way, and then cycle them out with little consternation among the masses, especially if they've taking many deeds back via deedback and many others see the wind down as "a lifeline" and are more than happy to take it. Rolling the rest into the trust is just gravy for getting themselves out of paying MFs.

I think the main issue is people don't like the idea of a resort lifetime, and I don't know that I do either - you'd imagine the MFs would be enough over the years to build sufficient reserves to renovate or even rebuild building by building as necessary. But this assumes at least 2 things, 1 - that people really did plan 40 years out to wind down the resorts, and 2 - that the probably much higher MFs to cover a potential bulldoze and rebuild would have ever worked in the wider market.

I really doubt anyone is really planning a whole lifetime of a resort when it's first built, and the other problem in the TS market creates the #2 issue. That being that the new builds or purchases are covered by the frankly insane developer prices for points sales as long as the sales are going. And those sale prices later on aren't going towards the HOA or any maintenance or anything, they're the revenue T&L etc is booking.

 

[Roger830]

I really doubt anyone is really planning a whole lifetime of a resort when it's first built, and the other problem in the TS market creates the #2 issue. That being that the new builds or purchases are covered by the frankly insane developer prices for points sales as long as the sales are going. And those sale prices later on aren't going towards the HOA or any maintenance or anything, they're the revenue T&L etc is booking.

I know some original owners at Hollywood Sands Resort since it became a timeshare about 1985 and some that gave it up when a spouse passed. We bought our first week in 2000 and now own weeks 4,5,6. We go there every year and intend to do so in the future. Winter weeks are now selling by owner and agent for $8000-12,000. There are postcards of the buildings from the 50's and 60's.

Wyndham Sea Gardens, where we own week 7, and Santa Barbara also have winter regulars.

 

[jp10558]

I know some original owners at Hollywood Sands Resort since it became a timeshare about 1985 and some that gave it up when a spouse passed. We bought our first week in 2000 and now own weeks 4,5,6. We go there every year and intend to do so in the future. Winter weeks are now selling by owner and agent for $8000-12,000. There are postcards of the buildings from the 50's and 60's.

Wyndham Sea Gardens, where we own week 7, and Santa Barbara also have winter regulars.

Ahh, I see you could read my comment as an owners lifetime, I meant that none of the resort systems are likely able to realistically plan a 40+ year lifecycle, nor is any company in the US seeming to carry out half century long plans - most are a couple years at most, a couple quarters is more common. Even if they did the math and could predict inflation over 40+ years later (I know a consultant that has been asked to do this for governments and they say when it's done it's all BS math anyway) and could set MFs to cover rebuilds, there's no reason to do so. They have almost no interest in looking out for the customers/owners in 40+ years from now - heck, many of those owners will be dead by then anyway.

 

[dioxide45]

This (turning it all over to Capital Vacations) would be horrible for the Lake Lure owners. Capital Vacations manages our Fairfield Harbour (Sandcastle Cove section) and they've offered us a "relinquishment opportunity" that would cost us $2,500. This is a $480 legal fee plus twice our annual maintenance fee. Capital also has a bad reputation for poor maintenance, raising maintenance fees, and adding hefty assessments. Hopefully, Wyndham will offer the Lake Lure owners the options to either convert their ownership to CWA points or to walk away at no cost to the owner.

The problem is, I suspect there is a difference between a resort closing and a resort leaving Club Wyndham. If Wyndham were to offer owners there the option to convert to CWA, what happens with their actual underlying week at a resort that now is part of Capital Vacations? That week doesn't evaporate. Would Capital be willing to buy these deeds from all the owners? Doubtful. I suspect for resorts just leaving Club Wyndham, there would be no option to convert as you would really just end up owning an unconverted week and some CWA points too.

 

[dioxide45]

I suspect the SI resorts will be set up in a manner similar to the MVC resorts - to encourage new and existing owners to make developer purchases to gain access.

Don't resale owners have access to MVC without a new purchase? I know we were able to book at 5 months for the two we've stayed at so far (Nashville and Desert Blue) as resale only owners.

 

[paxsarah]

The problem is, I suspect there is a difference between a resort closing and a resort leaving Club Wyndham. If Wyndham were to offer owners there the option to convert to CWA, what happens with their actual underlying week at a resort that now is part of Capital Vacations? That week doesn't evaporate. Would Capital be willing to buy these deeds from all the owners? Doubtful. I suspect for resorts just leaving Club Wyndham, there would be no option to convert as you would really just end up owning an unconverted week and some CWA points too.

For any of these resorts, though, Wyndham is the owner of some number of those weeks already. What will be happening to Wyndham's owned weeks in this scenario, and so what's the difference if they add to that number by swapping some owners for CWA first?

 

[paxsarah]

Don't resale owners have access to MVC without a new purchase? I know we were able to book at 5 months for the two we've stayed at so far (Nashville and Desert Blue) as resale only owners.

Yes, as a resale owner the only MVC location I don't have access to is Atlanta. I don't know if this will be the case for every new MVC going forward, though - in the case of Atlanta, no biggie because of the CW inventory at the same location. (EDIT: And I've never been able to determine if the restriction is resale specific or simply non-VIP - perhaps a developer non-VIP could check.)

 

[Roger830]

Ahh, I see you could read my comment as an owners lifetime, I meant that none of the resort systems are likely able to realistically plan a 40+ year lifecycle, nor is any company in the US seeming to carry out half century long plans - most are a couple years at most, a couple quarters is more common.

I definitely agree with what you are saying here.

But you also said, "I think the main issue is people don't like the idea of a resort lifetime." That's true with those that want a flexible system with numerous resorts which we also want and use with Wyndham points. There are also those that want fixed weeks but with the high cost of desirable locations and poor trading power for off-season weeks, that 1980's business model is gone forever. Fortunately for us south Florida has only a few slow months.

At Hollywood Sands the developer in the 80's was long gone in 2000 when we bought our first week. We had rented the first week in February in mom and pop lodging plus a now retired timeshare for about 10 years. We bought into the Sands to be assured lodging in the future because of redevelopment which has since changed the charm that we once knew. Not too far into the future what we are fortunate to have will be gone.

 

[jp10558]

I definitely agree with what you are saying here.

But you also said, "I think the main issue is people don't like the idea of a resort lifetime." That's true with those that want a flexible system with numerous resorts which we also want and use with Wyndham points. There are also those that want fixed weeks but with the high cost of desirable locations and poor trading power for off-season weeks, that 1980's business model is gone forever. Fortunately for us south Florida has only a few slow months.

At Hollywood Sands the developer in the 80's was long gone in 2000 when we bought our first week. We had rented the first week in February in mom and pop lodging plus a now retired timeshare for about 10 years. We bought into the Sands to be assured lodging in the future because of redevelopment which has since changed the charm that we once knew. Not too far into the future what we are fortunate to have will be gone.

I feel like I'm still not being that clear - I wonder how many like the "forever" model, and how many want to buy in for a RTU style membership or TS expiring in some number of years. I'm on the fence about how that would work.

 

[Roger830]

I feel like I'm still not being that clear - I wonder how many like the "forever" model, and how many want to buy in for a RTU style membership or TS expiring in some number of years. I'm on the fence about how that would work.

In the 80's it never was about how many like the forever model.

A couple that we know at Hollywood Sands were staying next door at what is now the Marriott, HJ at the time, and stopped at the Sands for free wine and snacks. They were sold weeks 52 and 1. They never went there to buy a forever model. They now own weeks 52,1,2,3,4 and rent week 5.

Now in the resale market there are those that want the forever model because they want to stay ocean front in a a condo for a little over $1000 a week rather than a hotel room for $400 a night.

 

[HitchHiker71]

The problem is, I suspect there is a difference between a resort closing and a resort leaving Club Wyndham. If Wyndham were to offer owners there the option to convert to CWA, what happens with their actual underlying week at a resort that now is part of Capital Vacations? That week doesn't evaporate. Would Capital be willing to buy these deeds from all the owners? Doubtful. I suspect for resorts just leaving Club Wyndham, there would be no option to convert as you would really just end up owning an unconverted week and some CWA points too.

I expect that the swap offered will basically be an equity swap - you give up your weeks based or converted week or UDI contract - and Wyndham swaps in an equivalent CWA contract - Wyndham will then retain ownership of your original contract. No owner will retain the original contract under any circumstances - regardless of the disposition of the resort inventory itself.

 

[HitchHiker71]

Don't resale owners have access to MVC without a new purchase? I know we were able to book at 5 months for the two we've stayed at so far (Nashville and Desert Blue) as resale only owners.

Not all of them no - AFAIK resale owners still do not have access to the MVC inventory at Atlanta for example, only retail owners do. I'd expect the SI resorts that will be brand new to adhere to this same model moving forward, resale owners will only receive the five month access window if the occupancy rates fall under a certain threshold.