It was Wyndham Pagosa Mountain Meadows that is the referenced property that terminated as a CW timeshare on January 4, 2025. See posts #26 and #292 and a few other posts in this thread -- which seems like ancient history now.
There is a 100% chance these weeks will no longer be a part of Club Wyndham and by extension, CWA, if/when/as each affected resort votes to terminate as a timeshare by one means or another. No different than any other converted fixed week owner at the affected resort.
I didn’t mean owned by CWA trust, I just meant owned by Club Wyndham.
I noticed this label for the MF column on the chart, but most of these resorts do not have UDI points but are only converted fixed weeks. Thus many of the figures in that column may be correct for one owner who owns a particular HOA/location, unit type, and season at that resort, but don’t apply across the board (since another owner even at the same HOA may own the same unit in a different season and pay a vastly different MF rate in $ per 1,000).
It matters to Wyndham - they aren't going to keep a resort in the system where owners have no desire to stay and persistently utilize over the long term- i.e. where a minority of the occupancy is owner occupancy. I'm sure there are seasons at almost every resort in the system where rentals are more popular for whatever reason - however overall owner occupancy is explicitly tracked among other KPIs for a reason.
Again, everyone here seems to be attempting to boil things down to binary outcomes - despite my repeatedly indicating that these are never binary decisions. I never said owner occupancy or overall occupancy was the only factor in scope from a decision-making standpoint - I said it's one of many factors. I've been to BB many times, and we're heading back to BB in the fall for a week since it's closing end of year. I'm not arguing against any of the points being made. I'm certain that the decision to sell this resort had many factors involved, from owner occupancy to location to age to duplication (Smuggs is not far away for example - and is a bigger and arguably better ski location in most respects). We simply don't know what all those factors are, and attempting to guess, while fun to some extent, is just that, a guess, we really don't know until and unless Wyndham chooses to tell everyone, and I doubt this information will be shared publicly.
Data added to our chart.
Wyndham must own at least 50% and close to 67%, maybe even more, at the affected resorts. Who has been paying the majority of maintenance fees at the affected resorts for years? Wyndham.
knows the right upgrades can more than pay for the cost through a higher selling price.
Wyndham must own at least 50% and close to 67%, maybe even more, at the affected resorts. Who has been paying the majority of maintenance fees at the affected resorts for years? Wyndham.
You are missing the fact that each of these is an individual resort with its own HOA and budget; it is not "one big Club with one big pot of money." Owners at, say, Bali Hai are not "subsidizing remodeling" at any other location.
There were two reserves spend options at the affected resorts:
1) Do not remodel, sell the resort as a fixer-upper, and disperse the remodeling reserves with the sales proceeds.
2) Remodel the resort, sell the resort for a higher price than it would have fetched as a fixer-upper, disperse the higher sales proceeds to owners. Anyone with any experience selling real estate
Each owner takes the disbursement from #1 or #2 and spends it however they want. It does not take anything away from the owners remaining in Club Wyndham. Sure, there are some owners at the affected resorts that do not like being forced into #1 or #2, but they are in the minority or super-minority control of the resort according to each HOAs governing documents.
I purchased a resale contract at Bentley Brook, all the paperwork needed was signed, etc, and sent to Wyndham for the transfer. It was (suspiciously, IMO) cancelled - I was working through a 3rd party broker so the real scoop was hard to get. Has Wyndham been collecting some of these deeds so they have the majority vote at these resorts?
Something does not sound right. "all the paperwork needed was signed, etc, and sent to Wyndham for the transfer." would have included the newly recorded deed in your name. Wyndham could not arbitrarily cancel that. The seller must have somehow backed out of the deal before the deed was recorded, and the paperwork was never "sent to Wyndham for the transfer" for reasons unknown.
I have to admit I don't quite understand what you're saying about a "converted floating fixed week." Do you mean that there are floating weeks in addition to fixed weeks at some of these resorts like Fairfield Bay and Fairfield Glade? Or are you saying that you've manually calculated an average MF rate across all seasons for those resorts?
The bright side is, those that complain about maintenance fees can view this as another way to get out of paying maintenance fees
How can a deeded week, even a converted deeded week, have ROFR? The deed is recorded in the new owners name before it is sent to Wyndham. I have never heard of Wyndham having to be contacted first for ROFR before a deed may be recorded in a new owners name.
It was a cluster from the get-go. We had to sign power of attorney, there was something 'special' about how timeshares are recorded in Massachusetts (as in it was not recorded before sending to Wyndham, I remember that) (and maybe the reseller was blowing smoke, who knows). This is how I was notified - this message is from the reseller after all the paperwork was sent to Wyndham.
Okay, so then circling back to my original comment about the MFs column, for instance, the figure for Fairfield Glade ($6.34/k) is just one owner's fixed week MF rate (at one of many HOAs) that they posted in this thread. A different Glade owner posted their MF rate and it was $7.59. As savvy TUG members they may have curated their contracts to be high or prime season to get a better MF rate, so they may both be better than average of the resort as a whole. So my original point is that I don't think it's informative to have a MF rate in that column that comes from just one of many possible combinations of fixed weeks and HOAs.
I'll second that. Who reads fine print (the red comments)? Perhaps that column should say Varies and the range (low-high)?