Let's speculate about Polynesian some more!

[Sandisw]

I wonder if FW opens first with restrictions so that if PVB 2 opens without them, it lessens the blow for RIV owners.

Not sure what you mean by blow to RIV owners. We all knew what they were going in and bought anyway.

 

[Minniemoo15]

Not sure what you mean by blow to RIV owners. We all knew what they were going in and bought anyway.

I think if I was a RIV owner and the next two resorts that opened at WDW didn’t have restrictions, I’d be super annoyed. It’s either the way of the future or it isn’t. It’s odd that whether PVB 2 will have restrictions or not is even a debate that we are having .

So my theory is if FW opens first with restrictions, then PVB opens after without them, there may be less uproar from current RIV owners.

 

[Sandisw]

I think if I was a RIV owner and the next two resorts that opened at WDW didn’t have restrictions, I’d be super annoyed. It’s either the way of the future or it isn’t. It’s odd that whether PVB 2 will have restrictions or not is even a debate that we are having .

So my theory is if FW opens first with restrictions, then PVB opens after without them, there may be less uproar from current RIV owners.

As a RIV owner, I bought because it’s where I wanted to own and it’s resale value wasn’t important.

But, regardless, if they decide to add to FW and not to Poly tower, it is only because they feel it will sell better as part of PVB…which then doesn’t make it new but a new phase.

And, of course, DVD gave themselves the power to reverse things moving forward….so, that could happen….

However, what you mention is a other reason why I think the decision will be to make Poly tower a new association to keep things from being confusing.

But I do agree that if this was being built anywhere else on Disney property that didn’t have a DVC component, there would be no discussion and we would all be assuming they would be there.

 

[skier_pete]

Opening both FW cabins and Poly tower in the same year certainly seems like they don’t care how fast or slow something sells, as long as all are selling, not to mention the cash component.

My guess is both of those will have a good cash following as well, like RIV and AUL, and thus it very well could change the overall strategy for them.

Cash bookings are fine, but it is not a strategy that DVC will ever want to embrace. They were forced to do it at Aulani, and are forced into it at Riviera as well. Cash bookings give them immediate earnings, but the investment here is to sell the resort out and get their profits. The profits margin on $200 per point rooms are in the 75-80% range. The profit margin on a nights stay is more like 30-40%. Selling points is always where they want to be.

I don't think Disney is happy with the sales at Riviera, I also don't think they're upset about them because they can sell the rooms out for cash. The goal isn't to sell points ASAP, the goal is to get as much money as possible per point while taking into account the cost of holding onto the points themselves. Why would RIV sell out faster than VGF? Even if it opened 3 years later, it has 4 times as many points to sell compared to the recent VGF addition.

Totally agree, never expected VGF to outlast RIV. And there's also no doubt that putting VGF on sale at the same time would adversely affect RIV sales.

However, why is Disney suddenly putting other resorts up for sale. Their strategy for the last ten years (BLT -> VGF -> PVB -> RIV) was to essentially have one main resort on sale at a time. They bring RIV on in 2019, and sales are the weakest in the first year for a new resort in all that time. So weak that a year in they declare they are opening VGF at the same time. Then they bring on Poly2 and Fort Winderness to also compete with Poly.

(I do not look at Disneyland Hotel as a competitor for east coast

I never said resale restrctions don’t play a role,,,I am sure they do. But, I don’t agree that they are the sales killer that some think they are and DVDs own moves with incentives proves it to me. Of course, they are not lighting the world on fire. But, VGF had 9 months in the last year that sold less than 60k, and 4 of those were under 50k…yet that doesn’t seem to matter.?

Here we agree. I don't think they are a huge sales killer - they hurt, but are they a big enough problem to cause RIV their soft sales? I don't know. I don't think they know.

2030 definitely ranks as ridiculously pessimistic and out of whack with the pace it's currently selling. Pessimistically it's 5 years more, but we also know sales are a bit U shaped and ramp up towards the sell out.

RIV is currently outselling VDH that has a similar stock left... it's going to be well gone before Poly2 and probably Fort Wilderness, I'm not sure why you so strongly feel the opposite.

2030 is not ridiculously pessimistic at all. Best case when it opened - and probably original target when it opened - was 2026. It has sold out just past 50% in 4.5 years, but sales rates have dropped off significantly. This year sales rates have not exceeded 50,000 points for any month. Assuming DVC can sustain sales of 50,000 points per month, that's 55 more months, or 4.5 years, which means at current rates sell-out will be mid-2028. However, with Poly2 and Fort Wilderness coming into the mix, do you expect sales on Riviera to go UP in the next 2-3 years, or down? I would argue realistically 2029 to 2030 for selling out Riviera, unless they decide to put up some big incentives to get it sold.

But I do agree that if this was being built anywhere else on Disney property that didn’t have a DVC component, there would be no discussion and we would all be assuming they would be there.

And I also want to say this - my MAIN reason for them keeping it the same is NOT the restrictions. It's the fact they can sell points with a 42 year lease instead of 50.

 

[Sandisw]

Cash bookings are fine, but it is not a strategy that DVC will ever want to embrace. They were forced to do it at Aulani, and are forced into it at Riviera as well. Cash bookings give them immediate earnings, but the investment here is to sell the resort out and get their profits. The profits margin on $200 per point rooms are in the 75-80% range. The profit margin on a nights stay is more like 30-40%. Selling points is always where they want to be.


Totally agree, never expected VGF to outlast RIV. And there's also no doubt that putting VGF on sale at the same time would adversely affect RIV sales.

However, why is Disney suddenly putting other resorts up for sale. Their strategy for the last ten years (BLT -> VGF -> PVB -> RIV) was to essentially have one main resort on sale at a time. They bring RIV on in 2019, and sales are the weakest in the first year for a new resort in all that time. So weak that a year in they declare they are opening VGF at the same time. Then they bring on Poly2 and Fort Winderness to also compete with Poly.

(I do not look at Disneyland Hotel as a competitor for east coast



Here we agree. I don't think they are a huge sales killer - they hurt, but are they a big enough problem to cause RIV their soft sales? I don't know. I don't think they know.




2030 is not ridiculously pessimistic at all. Best case when it opened - and probably original target when it opened - was 2026. It has sold out just past 50% in 4.5 years, but sales rates have dropped off significantly. This year sales rates have not exceeded 50,000 points for any month. Assuming DVC can sustain sales of 50,000 points per month, that's 55 more months, or 4.5 years, which means at current rates sell-out will be mid-2028. However, with Poly2 and Fort Wilderness coming into the mix, do you expect sales on Riviera to go UP in the next 2-3 years, or down? I would argue realistically 2029 to 2030 for selling out Riviera, unless they decide to put up some big incentives to get it sold.



And I also want to say this - my MAIN reason for them keeping it the same is NOT the restrictions. It's the fact they can sell points with a 42 year lease instead of 50.

I definitely think that when they decided to go the restrictions route, they had to know that the sales model would be different and take time....so, I am not sure they went in expecting the same level of performance as previous resorts.

I do also think that BPK being converted to DVC had just as much to do with moving it from cash as rentals there were soft....and, it did give them just one more thing, after the impact of the pandemic, to offer new buyers.

That is the one thing that threw a monkey wrench in all of this...so, it really is an unknown....but, I do agree that if they combine, its not because of the restrictions and abandoning that model, but because they have decided it will sell better, along with the others.

Let's hope we get our answers soon!

 

[tom1944]

Poly2 as the same association works best for me.

 

[jkips]

Let's hope we get our answers soon!

I'm a bit surprised we don't have an answer yet....maybe I just care too much

 

[GoingSince1990]

I also want to say this - my MAIN reason for them keeping it the same is NOT the restrictions. It's the fact they can sell points with a 42 year lease instead of 50.

Yep. Having to wait an extra eight long years to take back control of a large chunk of the resort would seem to be a very big price to pay to uphold the principle of resale restrictions.

 

[skier_pete]

One added comment to this. I don't really think putting Poly2 into the old association won't really answer what they think of resale restrictions, but if they keep resale restrictions with Fort Wilderness Cabins, we KNOW they are in it for the long haul, because the resale restrictions there will REALLY have an impact on resale prices. (Can you imagine spending THAT much money and only being able to stay in Fort Wilderness cabins? I think resale prices here will be the lowest on Disney property.)

Because here's the rub - low resale prices hurt Disney more than they help.

 

[jkips]

Yep. Having to wait an extra eight long years to take back control of a large chunk of the resort would seem to be a very big price to pay to uphold the principle of resale restrictions.

Given what Disney's cost of capital is the discounted value of getting the rooms back in 42 years vs 50 years is virtually inconsequential. At a 15% discount rate the value of a dollar earned 42 years from now is $0.0028 ($1/((1.15)^42).)

Another way to say that is no one currently in management is going to be getting paid one cent more because the Poly DVC rooms revert back in 42 years instead of 50 years.

 

[maui22]

Same argument is going to happen in 42 years if it's not part of the same association or tower has less than 50 years.
It seems odd given the boards have criticized a studio/bungalow resort for 8 years that they would give the tower 50 years. If they make is new association, why not make it 42-45 years with the idea the it becomes 1 Polynesian association at that time?

Forcing DVD to try to sell studio/bungalow only association in 42 years seems like an obvious mistake. 42 more years of people posting how that was one of the worst DVD decisions doesn't seem like a good business plan (regardless of management being gone).

 

[Sandisw]

Yep. Having to wait an extra eight long years to take back control of a large chunk of the resort would seem to be a very big price to pay to uphold the principle of resale restrictions.

Flip side, which I think could be a reason is to avoid what they will be faced with in 2042....lots of inventories expiring at once.

Instead of having all rooms at that location come off line in 2066, you have some then and some in 2074....that still leaves a DVC presence at the Poly and they can then decide what to do with the long houses...maybe they go away, or they decide to renovate them into more than just studios or convert back to cash.

While I am sure it is something they are considering, it doesn't seem like something that won't happen for 42 years vs. 50 years would be a major part of the decision.

 

[DianaMB333]

Hi
Do you know if the new tower will have studios with similar bathroom configuration than the actuals?

Also, when the sales could begin?
Thanks!

 

[maui22]

Flip side, which I think could be a reason is to avoid what they will be faced with in 2042....lots of inventories expiring at once.

Instead of having all rooms at that location come off line in 2066, you have some then and some in 2074....that still leaves a DVC presence at the Poly and they can then decide what to do with the long houses...maybe they go away, or they decide to renovate them into more than just studios or convert back to cash.

While I am sure it is something they are considering, it doesn't seem like something that won't happen for 42 years vs. 50 years would be a major part of the decision.

Wouldn't offline for DVC mean they can use them for cash booking while they remodel each building?

2 associations and 8 year gap for remodeling puts them back into selling a studio/bungalow only resort. Their decision with BPK seems to indicate they believe it will not sell well.

What kind of legal issues would they run into if they said PVB remodeled and sold again in 45 (42 + 3 year rehab) years but they promise becomes part of tower when it expires and is resold in 53 (50 years + 3 year rehab) years? That would be 8 years of studio/bungalow only for those buying PVB+45 years. Seems unlikely.

This is why I believe if tower is new association, they opt for 42-45 years.

 

[Sandisw]

Wouldn't offline for DVC mean they can use them for cash booking while they remodel each building?

2 associations and 8 year gap for remodeling puts them back into selling a studio/bungalow only resort. Their decision with BPK seems to indicate they believe it will not sell well.

What kind of legal issues would they run into if they said PVB remodeled and sold again in 45 (42 + 3 year rehab) years but they promise becomes part of tower when it expires and is resold in 53 (50 years + 3 year rehab) years? That would be 8 years of studio/bungalow only for those buying PVB+45 years. Seems unlikely.

This is why I believe if tower is new association, they opt for 42-45 years.

They could certainly do whatever they want with the buildings once they are owned back. But it still means a lot of new inventory to offer for cash.

And, if they are going to declare something into DVC, I am not sure what the rules would be in terms of renovating at the same time. Logistically, it doesn’t seem to make sense because a remodel like that would most like be a construction site and this not something they can piecemeal.

Also, nothing requires them to remodel the current PVB longhouses when it expires back into studios only. They could very well decide to convert some of them to the larger 1 and 2 bedroom units.

Let’s assume two different associations now…when PVB expires and is remodeled, they only have two choices…add it to Poly tower..which they would not be able to do with 8 years left…or, make it new. It can’t joint the tower.

Now, there is nothing that prevents them from making the new PVB a 60 years contract so that they can get them on the same expiration.

But, given the location of each. And how far apart they are, I honestly don’t see the different expirations as a negative for DVD.

Of course, they could also decide to let PVB just expire and not bring them back as DVC and just keep for cash

 

[aka Charles]

They could certainly do whatever they want with the buildings once they are owned back…

Also, nothing requires them to remodel the current PVB longhouses when it expires back into studios only. They could very well decide to convert some of them to the larger 1 and 2 bedroom units.

I agree, they can do what ever they want once the contracts expire.

However, I think it is most likely that they will not remodel, but actually tear down the 50+ years old longhouses, and maybe the bungalows, to build something completely new.

That would allow them to re-imagine that side of the poly into whatever they think the market in the 2070's might want.
It could be a new type of Longhouses, or tower, or something completely different, with new types of villas and amenities.

It very well could be a huge project that takes many years to complete.
Maybe enough years for the Poly2 (if it is a separate 50 year assoc.) to catch up, expire, get fully remodeled, and be combined with this new Poly1 replacement, turning them into a super Poly3.0 for the next generation.

Also giving those of us still around something to complain about.
.

 

[KimMcGowan]

I agree, they can do what ever they want once the contracts expire.

However, I think it is most likely that they will not remodel, but actually tear down the 50+ years old longhouses, and maybe the bungalows, to build something completely new.

That would allow them to re-imagine that side of the poly into whatever they think the market in the 2070's might want.
It could be a new type of Longhouses, or tower, or something completely different, with new types of villas and amenities.

It very well could be a huge project that takes many years to complete.
Maybe enough years for the Poly2 (if it is a separate 50 year assoc.) to catch up, expire, get fully remodeled, and be combined with this new Poly1 replacement, turning them into a super Poly3.0 for the next generation.

Also giving those of us still around something to complain about.
.

That is a bold prediction. The look of the Poly is so iconic that I find it hard to believe that they would do away with the longhouses. I could see them rebuilding the longhouses- but totally replacing them? I am not sure.

 

[Ruttangel]

It's because what they were selling at VGF was just hotel rooms...

That’s not quite right, yes the new rooms were studios but the contract you got allows you to access all room types at 11 months.

Back on topic, the logic of putting this on sale without 11 month access to Bungalows doesn’t make any sense. How do you explain that to buyers?

 

[maui22]

They could certainly do whatever they want with the buildings once they are owned back. But it still means a lot of new inventory to offer for cash.

And, if they are going to declare something into DVC, I am not sure what the rules would be in terms of renovating at the same time. Logistically, it doesn’t seem to make sense because a remodel like that would most like be a construction site and this not something they can piecemeal.

Also, nothing requires them to remodel the current PVB longhouses when it expires back into studios only. They could very well decide to convert some of them to the larger 1 and 2 bedroom units.

Let’s assume two different associations now…when PVB expires and is remodeled, they only have two choices…add it to Poly tower..which they would not be able to do with 8 years left…or, make it new. It can’t joint the tower.

Now, there is nothing that prevents them from making the new PVB a 60 years contract so that they can get them on the same expiration.

But, given the location of each. And how far apart they are, I honestly don’t see the different expirations as a negative for DVD.

Of course, they could also decide to let PVB just expire and not bring them back as DVC and just keep for cash

I agree, they can do what ever they want once the contracts expire.

However, I think it is most likely that they will not remodel, but actually tear down the 50+ years old longhouses, and maybe the bungalows, to build something completely new.

That would allow them to re-imagine that side of the poly into whatever they think the market in the 2070's might want.
It could be a new type of Longhouses, or tower, or something completely different, with new types of villas and amenities.

It very well could be a huge project that takes many years to complete.
Maybe enough years for the Poly2 (if it is a separate 50 year assoc.) to catch up, expire, get fully remodeled, and be combined with this new Poly1 replacement, turning them into a super Poly3.0 for the next generation.

Also giving those of us still around something to complain about.
.

Stories I herd is they considered 1BR and 2BR for PVB longhouses, but it would have been easier to tear down and build new.

If they decide to tear down longhouses, they may want to start with the hotels first since they are 10-15 years older. This would be terrible for PVB and the tower owners, but a potential huge profit for Disney.

 

[skier_pete]

Given what Disney's cost of capital is the discounted value of getting the rooms back in 42 years vs 50 years is virtually inconsequential. At a 15% discount rate the value of a dollar earned 42 years from now is $0.0028 ($1/((1.15)^42).)

Another way to say that is no one currently in management is going to be getting paid one cent more because the Poly DVC rooms revert back in 42 years instead of 50 years.

Then please explain to me why Disney chose to combine at VGF.

By much of the logic in this thread, Disney wants to keep going with the Resale restrictions, and now you propose the benefit of shortening the lease is nil. Then why combine VGF? Is it likely to help with sales? Only marginally - by combining they allow new members to book 1-, 2-, and 3- bedrooms.