Disney is stuck then - because they can only eliminate the resale market one way, and that is to buy back every contract themselves. However, doing this will drive the resale prices up, and therefore they will not profit much from the resale contracts - AND a resale contract they buy and sell direct is eliminating the sale of a new contract. So while Disney COULD do this - they are unlikely to do it.
I agree with your analysis of how this would occur but disagree that it is the only way to eliminate the resale market. Read on...
DIsney's ideal world is HIGH resale prices with significant differences between resale and direct. This is why I don't understand the strategy of this resale restriction. It will drive resale prices DOWN on the newer resorts, the opposite of what they want. I admit them changing policy back is unlikely, but if they realize they've hurt themselves with it, they would certainly consider rolling it back - of course due to "Guest Demand".
You have a valid point. I happen to disagree, but I concede that there is a chance that your vision is correct and mine isn't. I see things differently though.
On one hand, it might make sense that Disney wants to see these contracts hold their value on the secondary market.
@DougEMG suggested that DVC execs were dismayed upon hearing that the first RIV resale contract sold for $100. On the other hand, however, they have been clear that they do not want others profiting off of DVC. The only way to accomplish this goal is to suppress the resale prices of contracts. Up until the restrictions this was impossible because a resale contract was functionally the same as a direct contract. Demand was high and prices followed. However, this round of restrictions sets them on the road to price suppression, assuming they follow through with even more severe restrictions.
Case in point...I own at Marriott Grande Vista (which I bought in 2000 and could have had 300 points at Old Key West for the same price but we won't talk about that). I paid about $15,000 and right now if I wanted to sell it I could probably get about $2,000. So instead, I write it off as perhaps a dumb move, but in the meantime, we happily use it every year and stay in great accommodations for a fraction of what it costs to stay elsewhere. So I'm using the product exactly as it is intended by force: I simply don't have any alternative. Nobody is willing to give me anything significant for it because once it transfers to them it becomes so severely damaged that using it is quite difficult/restricted/expensive. I think THAT is what Disney is going for. DVC is a great product and the Riviera is by all accounts a beautiful resort. Disney wants you to buy it and keep it if for no other reason than you have no other alternatives. Remember, that is the only transaction they make money on, so everything they do is geared towards insuring that direct sales are the only DVC transactions that take place. The way they accomplish this goal is to make it so very unattractive that only a select few people who are adept at the timeshare game are willing to purchase. This, combined with restrictions, will suppress the resale prices. This means that owners won't be incentivized to sell and there is no real profit to be had.
One of the many obstacles they would have to overcome with this strategy is that right now a cheap resale contract could still be used as a rental points cow. As long as that is allowed, resale prices have a built-in floor based on profits generated from rentals. I don't know the legalities of how they would shut that down, but you can bet they are thinking about it. People are upset over the Riviera resale restrictions and I understand why. All I'm saying is that if you're upset now, just you wait. Those were only the tip of the iceberg.