Multi-Site POS Revision Dated 01/19/19

[Tom Karpowich]

Ok.

After Church, I spent some quality time in my Poly Component Site POS.

#1. Membership is expressly an appurtenance of ownership.

#2. Under Poly's Resort Agreement, page 3: 3.1(b) "That membership in the Club is an appurtenance to each Ownership Interest at the Polynesian Resort..."

#3. Poly Resort Agreement page 5: 6.1 "In the event BVTC associates one or more additional resorts as DVC resorts, the DVC resort agreement executed to effect each association shall be substantially similar to this agreement in all material respects under the circumstances pertaining to such additional DVC resort."

#4. Poly Resort Agreement page 6: 6.2(b) "The association of additional DVC resorts is not subject to the approval of DVCMC, the association, or any club member, and any decision to associate DVC resorts, including terms and conditions under which the DVC resort is associated, will be made by BVTC subject to the express written approval of DVD. In making a decision to associate additional DVC resorts, BVTC shall use its best efforts, in good faith and based upon all available evidence under the circumstances, to further the best interests of the Club Members taken as a whole and with respect to Club Members' opportunities to use and enjoy all of the vacation homes and related facilities made available through the DVC Reservation component."

Clear lines of thought here.

All L14 owners are club members, as an appurtenance of ownership. Each resort association and DVCM empowers BVTC to act as agents for the members for the reservation component. DVD empowers BVTC to add new resorts. BVTC has a contractual obligation to act in the best interests of Club members specifically with respect to furthering the best interest of Club Members to have opportunity to use all the vacation homes made available through the reservation component.

DVC/DVD/BVTC need to get their hats on straight.

What they are proposing is straight up in violation of the agreements they made with the L14 owners and their successors (resale buyers, aka, also owners). No amount of lawyering is going to get them around the express terms in bold above that say they have an obligation to club members as a whole to make the system available for all vacation homes in the reservation component.

Regardless what DVD wants to do to resales, DVCM and BVTC have legal and binding obligations to the membership as a whole, and that includes L14 resale owners both pre and post 1/19/19, aka "club members".

@ziravan

I agree that this is the real issue. It appears that Disney is attempting to devalue the points of owners they don't like. (They just happen to be using the term 'resale' but if they can make this change, then they can base future changes on anything they want - such as owner's that don't by park tickets, or the dining plan, or don't use the Disney credit card.) In fact, the seller is not relevant to the legal rights of a deeded ownership represented by a 'point'. The only distinction that can be made between any point is the deeded resort represented by that point. Thus, all points in the pool are equal to each other inside of the home resort and then outside of the home resort. Thus, I believe all of what you are saying to be true. Perhaps you or someone, somewhere can help me understand what Disney is really doing. A DVC2 is the only thing that makes sense legally at this stage. But from this thread, it appears that Disney is spending a lot of effort to not do that but rather rewrite real estate laws. What am I missing?

For discussion purposes, this is not about the dates between Jan 20th and March 1, 2019. It affects every DVC owner that may desire to sell before their resort's end date. It is unclear what the ultimate net $$ affect with be, but as new resorts are built, the imbalance will grow and the current value will become more and more diluted in real terms as Disney will allow more folks into others 'homes' that aren't allowed in theirs.

 

[ziravan]

@ziravan

I agree that this is the real issue. It appears that Disney is attempting to devalue the points of owners they don't like. (They just happen to be using the term 'resale' but if they can make this change, then they can base future changes on anything they want - such as owner's that don't by park tickets, or the dining plan, or don't use the Disney credit card.) In fact, the seller is not relevant to the legal rights of a deeded ownership represented by a 'point'. The only distinction that can be made between any point is the deeded resort represented by that point. Thus, all points in the pool are equal to each other inside of the home resort and then outside of the home resort. Thus, I believe all of what you are saying to be true. Perhaps you or someone, somewhere can help me understand what Disney is really doing. A DVC2 is the only thing that makes sense legally at this stage. But from this thread, it appears that Disney is spending a lot of effort to not do that but rather rewrite real estate laws. What am I missing?

For discussion purposes, this is not about the dates between Jan 20th and March 1, 2019. It affects every DVC owner that may desire to sell before their resort's end date. It is unclear what the ultimate net $$ affect with be, but as new resorts are built, the imbalance will grow and the current value will become more and more diluted in real terms as Disney will allow more folks into others 'homes' that aren't allowed in theirs.

The system was clearly designed to treat points equally. A club member was a club member. It was designed at a time when Disney considered itself something different, where “timeshare” was a technical possibly even dirty word. No. It’s a club, you’re free to make that Mickey Mouse Clubhouse connection if you will.

That was a different era, before every decision was excused by, “following industry standards.” The original documents harken from a time when Disney - and DVC - considered itself a standard all their own.

Now that being “just another timeshare” is apparently in vogue with current leadership, they’re trying to make the language designed for an elegant offering match the language of “just following industry standards, yup yup.”

I think that’s an order taller than the plain language designed by their ‘elegant offering’ predecessors was written to allow. In fact, it’s fairly obvious to me that the original DVC architects designed their contractual language with an eye towards preventing just such a future fracturing of the “club” they were creating.

 

[TK-Tampa]

The system was clearly designed to treat points equally. A club member was a club member. It was designed at a time when Disney considered itself something different, where “timeshare” was a technical possibly even dirty word. No. It’s a club, you’re free to make that Mickey Mouse Clubhouse connection if you will.

That was a different era, before every decision was excused by, “following industry standards.” The original documents harken from a time when Disney - and DVC - considered itself a standard all their own.

Now that being “just another timeshare” is apparently in vogue with current leadership, they’re trying to make the language designed for an elegant offering match the language of “just following industry standards, yup yup.”

I think that’s an order taller than the plain language designed by their ‘elegant offering’ predecessors was written to allow. In fact, it’s fairly obvious to me that the original DVC architects designed their contractual language with an eye towards preventing just such a future fracturing of the “club” they were creating.

Thank for the response.

My real question is this: It appears that Disney will be letting future Riviera and beyond owners in the current general points pool (original 14) And per their statements and filed documents, they are choosing to not allow some current (and future) original 14 owners access to the new resorts. What is he legal basis for doing this without walling off future resorts ala DVC2?

In reality and legally, today all owners are owners in the pool and the rules of the points are fair and equitable to all. Going forward, Disney is creating a separate class of owners based on arbitrary criteria. From a logical perspective the only way they can legally and fairly do that is to either create a separate DVC Resort or a separate pool of points (which gets to the same place). With the unique pool of points, Disney can then trade the points they control between the pools. (And owners of each pool can then to "opt-in" to the trading of their points). I don't see how they can do this any other way.

 

[GrumpyInPhilly]

@ziravan

I agree that this is the real issue. It appears that Disney is attempting to devalue the points of owners they don't like. (They just happen to be using the term 'resale' but if they can make this change, then they can base future changes on anything they want - such as owner's that don't by park tickets, or the dining plan, or don't use the Disney credit card.) In fact, the seller is not relevant to the legal rights of a deeded ownership represented by a 'point'. The only distinction that can be made between any point is the deeded resort represented by that point. Thus, all points in the pool are equal to each other inside of the home resort and then outside of the home resort. Thus, I believe all of what you are saying to be true. Perhaps you or someone, somewhere can help me understand what Disney is really doing. A DVC2 is the only thing that makes sense legally at this stage. But from this thread, it appears that Disney is spending a lot of effort to not do that but rather rewrite real estate laws. What am I missing?

For discussion purposes, this is not about the dates between Jan 20th and March 1, 2019. It affects every DVC owner that may desire to sell before their resort's end date. It is unclear what the ultimate net $$ affect with be, but as new resorts are built, the imbalance will grow and the current value will become more and more diluted in real terms as Disney will allow more folks into others 'homes' that aren't allowed in theirs.

Nice first post &

*** Welcome! ***

 

[skier_pete]

In reality and legally, today all owners are owners in the pool and the rules of the points are fair and equitable to all. Going forward, Disney is creating a separate class of owners based on arbitrary criteria. From a logical perspective the only way they can legally and fairly do that is to either create a separate DVC Resort or a separate pool of points (which gets to the same place). With the unique pool of points, Disney can then trade the points they control between the pools. (And owners of each pool can then to "opt-in" to the trading of their points). I don't see how they can do this any other way.

I guess I don't see where people say Disney can't do this. They already have 3 classes of owners - now 4.
1) Ones that bought direct
2) Ones that bought resale after 2012 but before 2016 and can't trade into Disney collection etc... (Forget exact dates)
3) Ones that bought resale after 2016 but before Jan 19, 2019 and don't get membership perks
And now
4) Ones that bought resale after Jan 19, 2019 and don't get any of the above, OR get to trade out of their home resort.

No one has disputed them doing these things before? Why now? And I KNOW there are other timeshare systems that do the same thing (buy resale and you can't trade out of your home resort).

Is it sort of sad that Disney has degraded their product? Yes, but only for those that buy resale. Direct buyer still gets the "elite" experience, they just don't get the financial benefit of resale being worth as much, but there are no promises anywhere that says Disney has to maximize the value of your property if you sell it.

I'm not defending what Disney is doing - only that they aren't breaking any laws in doing it.

If someone really thinks the laws are being broken, why not get a lawsuit going???

 

[zavandor]

I guess I don't see where people say Disney can't do this. They already have 3 classes of owners - now 4.
1) Ones that bought direct
2) Ones that bought resale after 2012 but before 2016 and can't trade into Disney collection etc... (Forget exact dates)
3) Ones that bought resale after 2016 but before Jan 19, 2019 and don't get membership perks
And now
4) Ones that bought resale after Jan 19, 2019 and don't get any of the above, OR get to trade out of their home resort.

No one has disputed them doing these things before? Why now? And I KNOW there are other timeshare systems that do the same thing (buy resale and you can't trade out of your home resort).

Is it sort of sad that Disney has degraded their product? Yes, but only for those that buy resale. Direct buyer still gets the "elite" experience, they just don't get the financial benefit of resale being worth as much, but there are no promises anywhere that says Disney has to maximize the value of your property if you sell it.

I'm not defending what Disney is doing - only that they aren't breaking any laws in doing it.

If someone really thinks the laws are being broken, why not get a lawsuit going???

It will soon be 5, number 4 has to be split into:
4) Ones that bought resale after Jan 19, 2019 at the 14 Legacy resorts and will be able to book any Legacy 14 resorts
5) Ones that will buy resale at Riviera and successive resorts and will be able to book only their own resort

And maybe 5 will be split again if Disney will allow to qualify points for a fee and decide their point work in a different way (will they be considered full qualified direct points? Maybe they'll be able to trade but won't get Membership extras).

 

[skier_pete]

It will soon be 5, number 4 has to be split into:
4) Ones that bought resale after Jan 19, 2019 at the 14 Legacy resorts and will be able to book any Legacy 14 resorts
5) Ones that will buy resale at Riviera and successive resorts and will be able to book only their own resort

And maybe 5 will be split again if Disney will allow to qualify points for a fee and decide their point work in a different way (will they be considered full qualified direct points? Maybe they'll be able to trade but won't get Membership extras).

And I also missed...Those with 25 points bought direct for membership benefits vs those with 75 points bought direct for membership benefits.

 

[PKen82]

The Resort and Room Type with the very best availability WILL be Poly Bungalows. How to fix this? They can't. Apparently they can't even shift points away from the Bungalows and onto the Standard and Lake View Studio, because, apparently, ANY point changes must balance WITHIN THE SAME UNIT TYPE.

Sorry I’m late to the ball on this, but is this true? This is new to me as I always thought points could be reallocated across unit types (as they obviously tried with the original 2020 point charts).

Thank you everyone for your input to this thread!

 

[zavandor]

Sorry I’m late to the ball on this, but is this true? This is new to me as I always thought points could be reallocated across unit types (as they obviously tried with the original 2020 point charts).

Until someone is willing to test this in court, it's difficult to say for sure. DVC say they can allocate across units and it's what they did in the past, for example for the Treehouse Villas. This year they tried to do different things at the same time and they rolled back "because of members feedback" not because what they did was illegal, according to them. What exactly pushed them to roll back? I guess we'll know it when we'll see the 2021 point charts.

 

[PKen82]

Until someone is willing to test this in court, it's difficult to say for sure. DVC say they can allocate across units and it's what they did in the past, for example for the Treehouse Villas. This year they tried to do different things at the same time and they rolled back "because of members feedback" not because what they did was illegal, according to them. What exactly pushed them to roll back? I guess we'll know it when we'll see the 2021 point charts.

Thank you!

I mentioned this in another thread, but I feel like the recently announced “maximum reallocation” values (https://www.dvcnews.com/index.php/r...era-rooms-declared-into-timeshare-association) might give some clue to the 2021 point charts (and perhaps beyond). Specifically, these values seem to be consistent with VGF in regards to the lockoff premium and point differentials between unit types (e.g. 1-bdrm points = approx. 2*studio points).

Although possible, I can’t imagine that DVD would make significant point reallocations so soon on a new resort. If so, I don’t think it’s a stretch to conclude that the 2021 charts will look similar to 2020.

All the member noise concerning the original 2020 charts was critical. I suspect the Riviera “maximum reallocation” values would have looked different if those original 2020 charts were retained.

 

[TexasChick123]

Thank you!

I mentioned this in another thread, but I feel like the recently announced “maximum reallocation” values (https://www.dvcnews.com/index.php/r...era-rooms-declared-into-timeshare-association) might give some clue to the 2021 point charts (and perhaps beyond). Specifically, these values seem to be consistent with VGF in regards to the lockoff premium and point differentials between unit types (e.g. 1-bdrm points = approx. 2*studio points).

Although possible, I can’t imagine that DVD would make significant point reallocations so soon on a new resort. If so, I don’t think it’s a stretch to conclude that the 2021 charts will look similar to 2020.

All the member noise concerning the original 2020 charts was critical. I suspect the Riviera “maximum reallocation” values would have looked different if those original 2020 charts were retained.

I agree.

 

[drusba]

Thank you!

I mentioned this in another thread, but I feel like the recently announced “maximum reallocation” values (https://www.dvcnews.com/index.php/r...era-rooms-declared-into-timeshare-association) might give some clue to the 2021 point charts (and perhaps beyond). Specifically, these values seem to be consistent with VGF in regards to the lockoff premium and point differentials between unit types (e.g. 1-bdrm points = approx. 2*studio points).

Although possible, I can’t imagine that DVD would make significant point reallocations so soon on a new resort. If so, I don’t think it’s a stretch to conclude that the 2021 charts will look similar to 2020.

All the member noise concerning the original 2020 charts was critical. I suspect the Riviera “maximum reallocation” values would have looked different if those original 2020 charts were retained.

The maximum reallocation numbers indicate the Riviera point charts will be close to BLT lake view (for standard), and BLT theme park view (for preferred), but the Tower Studios have the same maximum reallocation number as BWV standard studios. As those will likely be the "bargain" rooms, and there are only 24 of them, it is likely those will eventually develop a problem reserving even at 11-months out.

As to making significant point reallocations for 2021, I would not rule that out on the basis of having a new resort. Disney is the company that actually did a major point reallocation 4 months after BLT first went on sale, raising weekday nights (Sun through Thurs) and lowering weekends. That was done before BLT opened. and all those who had bought enough points to do Sun thru Thurs then got even further screwed when just days after announcing the new point charts, DVD raised the minimum add-on for BLT (and no other resort) from 25 points to 100 points, thus effectively requiring those BLT purchasers to buy 100 points to fix the problem DVD created. In other words, do not expect Disney to turnover a new leaf and be kind to members and not make onerous point changes in 2021 just because there is a new resort.

 

[Katie L]

Until someone is willing to test this in court, it's difficult to say for sure. DVC say they can allocate across units and it's what they did in the past, for example for the Treehouse Villas. This year they tried to do different things at the same time and they rolled back "because of members feedback" not because what they did was illegal, according to them. What exactly pushed them to roll back? I guess we'll know it when we'll see the 2021 point charts.

They'd never say it was illegal. Even if the started to think it was based on feedback they received. Like you said, if 2021 is status quo I think that indicates they are worried it might have been illegal. If they go with the same thing then I think they've decided that they don't care what members want. The conflict of interest there seems to be how do they (BVTC, I think it is?) justify that this is in all (or most) members' best interest? Especially if the same people are employees of DVD - this seems like a real conflict of interest.

 

[TK-Tampa]

I guess I don't see where people say Disney can't do this. They already have 3 classes of owners - now 4.
1) Ones that bought direct
2) Ones that bought resale after 2012 but before 2016 and can't trade into Disney collection etc... (Forget exact dates)
3) Ones that bought resale after 2016 but before Jan 19, 2019 and don't get membership perks
And now
4) Ones that bought resale after Jan 19, 2019 and don't get any of the above, OR get to trade out of their home resort.

No one has disputed them doing these things before? Why now? And I KNOW there are other timeshare systems that do the same thing (buy resale and you can't trade out of your home resort).

Is it sort of sad that Disney has degraded their product? Yes, but only for those that buy resale. Direct buyer still gets the "elite" experience, they just don't get the financial benefit of resale being worth as much, but there are no promises anywhere that says Disney has to maximize the value of your property if you sell it.

I'm not defending what Disney is doing - only that they aren't breaking any laws in doing it.

If someone really thinks the laws are being broken, why not get a lawsuit going???

This is a completely different distinction than the prior items you site. Not one other prior change affected the actual ownership of the pool of points. All the others you mention are seller spiffs and gifts. This action specifically affects the enjoyment and use of the real estate purchased legally and in good faith. Suppose for example, you by a house on a lake-front development from the original developer. As a spiff, the developer lets you and all other direct purchasers use his boat as long as you own the house. However, if you sell the house, the new owners cannot use the boat. However, the purchasers use the home they purchased completely and without any interference. The boat was never the sellers to give anyway. What Disney is now doing it appears, is not only taking the boat away, but allowing others to use your kitchen and bathroom any time they want, but then will not allow you to use their kitchen or bathroom at all. Of course, it is more complex than that with points, but that is the gist of what appears to be going on. Since they control the master keys, they are letting their preferred owners in anywhere but excluding the non-preferred ones from certain homes.

At first, the overall affect on the resale pricing will not be noticeable. But over time as more and more sell their shares as life goes on, people age, tastes change - there will be more and more non-preferred owners. 7-month points will become scarce, and non-preferred owners will effectively be able to only book their home resorts (and maybe the Poly floaters). Looking out further, this negatively impacts every single owner whether preferred or non-preferred. So as soon as any preferred owner sells, that buyer then becomes non-preferred which after 2 or 3 new resorts are built, we begin to erode the resale price all resorts. Who gains? Disney does. So it appears Disney is gaining value by deliberately devaluing the ownership of their non-preferred customers. Another example - suppose there are exactly 4 villas: 2 in Beach Club and 2 in Riviera. Both owners of the Riviera and one of the BC owners are preferred owners. The other BC owner is non-preferred. Ignoring the home-resort booking window, if both of the RR owners decide to book at the Beach club, before either of the owners of BC, they will have access to BC. The BC preferred owner will be forced to book at RR since that is the only resort available. What happens to the Non-preferred BC owner? that person cannot book at all! Thus, Disney gets the use of a free room at the expense of a non-preferred owner. As you point out, Disney never guaranteed that we would be able to book anywhere but our home resort. This is true. But no where have they stated that will let others book your home resort, but you cannot book there's. In fact, up until this 'announcement', they have always said the opposite.

Previously, Disney created two classes of 'buyers'. Now, Disney appears to be creating two classes of owners, one with rights higher than the other. By contractual definition - as Ziravan noted - all points are created equal and must be treated as so. Without a full understanding of what they are actually doing, it could appear that Disney intends to break the contract. Regarding a lawsuit, Disney has yet offered any RR units for sale. When they do, we will then all know exactly what they intend to do. If they intend to have a separate pool of points for RR and beyond, then using preferred owners' points as well as their own to trade between the point pools, will be all good and fair. However, if the points pools are combined, that is where the problems surface. Thus, only once the sales documents are released can it be determined if an class-action lawsuit (or injunction) is warranted. So, currently, one can only raise questions based on the info provided so far and cannot legally act until when, and if, the contract is broken.

I have asked several folks the question I am asking here. How is Disney going to be able to do this without being in violation of their current agreements? I have not yet asked Disney, but so far, no one has given me any answer other than 1) "I don't have the resources to fight Disney" or 2) "Disney wouldn't do this if they couldn't". Regarding the second answer, we all know that companies don't always to the right and legal thing. Wells Fargo and Audi are to recent national examples. I am not saying Disney has done or intends to do anything improper and I sincerely hope they do not. But they have openly stated that owners they like will have the run of the house, but owners they don't will be restricted. That is an egregious message and I am a bit surprised more owners are not questioning it. And they did just try to manipulate the points charts with what appeared to be additional points that were not required previously (although they have since backed off). Was that a mistake? A miscommunication? Something else? Either way, they did not really fully explain where those points were coming from.

For the record, I don't have an opinion as to whether Disney creates a separate DVC or points pool. I bought into the current system and am very happy with it as it stands today. I am likely to purchase shares in a cool new future resort (Belle's Castle in Fantasyland? The Taj Mahal?) whether it is in a new pool or not (assuming this is straightened out). What I am concerned about is having my property diluted and devalued without fair and adequate compensation for doing so and from what Disney as so far announced, appears to be doing exactly that.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

Thank you!

I mentioned this in another thread, but I feel like the recently announced “maximum reallocation” values (https://www.dvcnews.com/index.php/r...era-rooms-declared-into-timeshare-association) might give some clue to the 2021 point charts (and perhaps beyond). Specifically, these values seem to be consistent with VGF in regards to the lockoff premium and point differentials between unit types (e.g. 1-bdrm points = approx. 2*studio points).

Although possible, I can’t imagine that DVD would make significant point reallocations so soon on a new resort. If so, I don’t think it’s a stretch to conclude that the 2021 charts will look similar to 2020.

All the member noise concerning the original 2020 charts was critical. I suspect the Riviera “maximum reallocation” values would have looked different if those original 2020 charts were retained.

And immediately from the start it appears questionable if they actually believe and stand behind the statements they have made regarding the proposed 2020 point reallocation. If they did then they are starting Riviera outside of those observances and would have to almost immediately be making reallocations.

As mentioned though they did just that with BLT and the resort had not even opened yet.- there was quite the uproar over it. They did not change it but they did pull back on a couple other decisions of increasing the minimum add on and even allowed some people to do small point add ons to cover the difference.

I'd be rather distrustful of the Riviera point charts if they do come out initially looking like expected from the maximum reallocation amounts.

 

[skier_pete]

Looking out further, this negatively impacts every single owner whether preferred or non-preferred.

This is a good point. This is the first change that could truly hurt the "Preferred Owner" - but this is assuming enough of a resort turns over in resale. If 10% of a resort is resale owners, the affect is neglible. If 50% is, then it would be a strong notice. 50% of those point holders would have to book at their home resort - and therefore would also KNOW they have to book early to get the rooms they want. This will quickly block all preferred owners from getting into that resort.

In the end though - I wonder if their are less sellers/resales at Riviera. The problem is likely that the resale values are low -but the room rental values may stay high. So you may get more owners renting out their points. It still makes it difficult to get into the resort, but The day we are really in trouble is when Disney bans point rentals.

 

[TK-Tampa]

This is a good point. This is the first change that could truly hurt the "Preferred Owner" - but this is assuming enough of a resort turns over in resale. If 10% of a resort is resale owners, the affect is neglible. If 50% is, then it would be a strong notice. 50% of those point holders would have to book at their home resort - and therefore would also KNOW they have to book early to get the rooms they want. This will quickly block all preferred owners from getting into that resort.

In the end though - I wonder if their are less sellers/resales at Riviera. The problem is likely that the resale values are low -but the room rental values may stay high. So you may get more owners renting out their points. It still makes it difficult to get into the resort, but The day we are really in trouble is when Disney bans point rentals.

I am making the assumption that the change will not just be for the Riviera, but all other resorts going forward. They have started moving dirt for Star Wars (unknown if it will be DVC) and the former River Country site DVC Resort has been announced. So I am thinking that 3 could be online in 5 years and possibly another 2 - 3 in 10 years.

 

[ziravan]

Has anyone noticed that DVC started a sweepstakes on Tuesday this week that normally happens in conjunction with the start of sales.

I’m thinking that the contracts to run the sweepstakes were already signed, but unveiling Riviera was delayed.

 

[skier_pete]

I am making the assumption that the change will not just be for the Riviera, but all other resorts going forward. They have started moving dirt for Star Wars (unknown if it will be DVC) and the former River Country site DVC Resort has been announced. So I am thinking that 3 could be online in 5 years and possibly another 2 - 3 in 10 years.

There's absolutely ZERO chance the Star Wars hotel has a DVC component. BUT, there is a rumor of a front of Epcot hotel which could follow reflections. Plus BLT2 rumor has not totally gone away.

 

[skier_pete]

Has anyone noticed that DVC started a sweepstakes on Tuesday this week that normally happens in conjunction with the start of sales.

I’m thinking that the contracts to run the sweepstakes were already signed, but unveiling Riviera was delayed.

Agree it's a little odd that they would start that contest without having the sales material out...