Fort Wilderness Cabins Cannot Stave Off Slow March 2024 Direct Sales

[Sandisw]

It would still be the same MFs per room-night. But then with a larger buy in. I don’t see how that fixes the math at all.

The number of cabins remains fixed but the total points is increased. Over future declarations those differences could move it in a different t directions.

Example, if a cabin was allowed 7660 in the first and now it’s 7817, and as future declarations happen, they keep raising it, eventually it would add more total points to share the expenses.

 

[wnielsen1]

The number of cabins remains fixed but the total points is increased. Over future declarations those differences could move it in a different t directions.

Example, if a cabin was allowed 7660 in the first and now it’s 7817, and as future declarations happen, they keep raising it, eventually it would add more total points to share the expenses.

How does that even work? The point chart is fixed.

 

[Sandisw]

How does that even work? The point chart is fixed.

From what I am reading and learning, and the way the new POs for CFW as part of a RTU ownership via a trust, it’s not the same.

Total points can be adjusted until all rights are sold. DVD remains owner of the cabins, unlike a leasehold that sells actual ownership of the units.

The trust even allows them to reallocate points across multiple component sites.. That means they can add a future project, located elsewhere and then balance total points, based on demand, across both projects.

That is one of the big differences I see in running the trust model vs the traditional leasehold condo sale model.

 

[wnielsen1]

From what I am reading and learning, and the way the new POs for CFW as part of a RTU ownership via a trust, it’s not the same.

Total points can be adjusted until all rights are sold. DVD remains owner of the cabins, unlike a leasehold that sells actual ownership of the units.

The trust even allows them to reallocate points across multiple component sites.. That means they can add a future project, located elsewhere and then balance total points, based on demand, across both projects.

That is one of the big differences I see in running the trust model vs the traditional leasehold condo sale model.

Thanks Sandi. I will definitely not be buying this. No way am I handing them this flexibility. They've proven in the past that they can't help themselves even when they don't have the contractual flexibility.

 

[maui22]

From what I am reading and learning, and the way the new POs for CFW as part of a RTU ownership via a trust, it’s not the same.

Total points can be adjusted until all rights are sold. DVD remains owner of the cabins, unlike a leasehold that sells actual ownership of the units.

The trust even allows them to reallocate points across multiple component sites.. That means they can add a future project, located elsewhere and then balance total points, based on demand, across both projects.

That is one of the big differences I see in running the trust model vs the traditional leasehold condo sale model.

We are all learning a lot about the new product thanks to you!!!!

 

[Sandisw]

We are all learning a lot about the new product thanks to you!!!!

I am still reading the POS and haven't gotten very far since a few weeks ago (was on vacation in Ireland!)...but definitely an interesting read!

 

[MarkNC2Disney]

The trust even allows them to reallocate points across multiple component sites.. That means they can add a future project, located elsewhere and then balance total points, based on demand, across both projects.

May God have mercy on the 27 people that bought cabin points.

 

[Sandisw]

May God have mercy on the 27 people that bought cabin points.

While it sounds like a bad thing, it doesn't mean in practice...assuming resorts are added in the future....it won't be a good thing. If buying the trust ends up giving some enhanced access to other trust property before non owners of the trust, it might be good to own it.

I can say that if Poly tower had been put into the trust and sold, along with CFW as two sister properties with enhanced access, I would be seriously considering it, even though I wont with it being part of PVB.

The reason is the cabins are something I can see us using, for those non park trips where we just want to hang out, spend time at the resort, and visit DS a lot...the current PVB rooms are not.

Obviously, we won't know what they have in store for this trust until the next project comes along and is either made part of it or not, but I am not 100% sure its going to be a product that can't morph into something unique that people will like!

 

[MarkNC2Disney]

While it sounds like a bad thing, it doesn't mean in practice...assuming resorts are added in the future....it won't be a good thing. If buying the trust ends up giving some enhanced access to other trust property before non owners of the trust, it might be good to own it.

I can say that if Poly tower had been put into the trust and sold, along with CFW as two sister properties with enhanced access, I would be seriously considering it, even though I wont with it being part of PVB.

The reason is the cabins are something I can see us using, for those non park trips where we just want to hang out, spend time at the resort, and visit DS a lot...the current PVB rooms are not.

Obviously, we won't know what they have in store for this trust until the next project comes along and is either made part of it or not, but I am not 100% sure its going to be a product that can't morph into something unique that people will like!

I sincerely love your optimism and helpful analysis

We all put a lot of trust in Disney as it is, and I’d generally rather they not be given greater “creative operational flexibility” over DVC in the future.

 

[lawgator]

May God have mercy on the 27 people that bought cabin points.

I wouldn't buy more DVC points at the cabins because of those high dues and resale restrictions, but I must say I am looking forward to our bookings at 7 months and bringing our 2 well behaved and quiet dogs and renting a golf cart. I stayed in the old cabins last year and enjoyed it and have already booked now for October and December, 2024 to stay and decorate our cabin and go "looping" to see other Halloween and Christmas decorations. The points charts are very user friendly right now, too. I had to log on and have fast fingers to book right at 8am at 7 months, but got very lucky. It's just a different kind of Disney experience.

 

[aammtt20]

I feel like the terribly slow sales, coupled with the fact that DVC seems to have no care/urgency to market or sell the cabins makes me feel with about 97.8% certainty that a deluxe hotel will be added to the association on the Reflections site.

If there are beautiful rooms like Riviera, maybe a Storm-Along-Bay type pool area that can harken back to River Country, a signature dining restaurant, great theming of a western gold mining boom town, a unique character dining experience, etc. the fort wilderness association probably becomes a much easier sell. This is the only way I can rationalize how DVC is ok with how bad this flopping and how they also seem to be ok with putting zero effort into this. If they know they have an ace in the hole to play later, then it all makes sense to me. And if they don't, then I'm just perplexed by their actions. Maybe something will be announced at this years D23

 

[MarkNC2Disney]

I must say I am looking forward to our bookings at 7 months and bringing our 2 well behaved and quiet dogs and renting a golf cart

Agreed!

 

[vdangelo239]

If nobody buys, then we all get it!

This is why I love the Cabins...would I buy there as a home resort, NOPE....but will I happily do this every other year or so for something different - especially with a family of 5 and a pug who we always struggle to find somewhere for her to go - YES.

 

[vdangelo239]

I feel like the terribly slow sales, coupled with the fact that DVC seems to have no care/urgency to market or sell the cabins makes me feel with about 97.8% certainty that a deluxe hotel will be added to the association on the Reflections site.

If there are beautiful rooms like Riviera, maybe a Storm-Along-Bay type pool area that can harken back to River Country, a signature dining restaurant, great theming of a western-era gold mining boom town, a unique character dining experience, etc. the fort wilderness association probably becomes a much easier sell. This is the only way I can rationalize how DVC is ok with how bad this flopping and how they also seem to be ok with putting zero effort into this. If they know they have an ace in the hole to play later, then it all makes sense to me. And if they don't, then I'm just perplexed by their actions. Maybe something will be announced at this years D23

I agree - I feel like there is another shoe to drop with this....

I do agree though...Cabins marketed at families that do not have a tub...not smart....especially when most families who would buy this and enjoy bunk beds staring at mom / dad are folks w younger kids who will want a tub or even need a tub over a show.

 

[maui22]

From what I am reading and learning, and the way the new POs for CFW as part of a RTU ownership via a trust, it’s not the same.

Total points can be adjusted until all rights are sold. DVD remains owner of the cabins, unlike a leasehold that sells actual ownership of the units.

The trust even allows them to reallocate points across multiple component sites.. That means they can add a future project, located elsewhere and then balance total points, based on demand, across both projects.

That is one of the big differences I see in running the trust model vs the traditional leasehold condo sale model.

Thought about this more, do I understand correctly?

• Add more points to CFW trust. They spread the cost out to more points, so their dues drops. Based on the difference in points per unit, it's not significant. In theory, it becomes harder to book the home resort because they sell more points than the home resort has.
• That means fewer points at some future trust resort. This means high dues there because there are fewer points to pay for the resorts costs. In theory, it's easier to book (at least until a trust advantaged booking window) because there aren't as many points sold as the resort actually has.

 

[Sandisw]

Thought about this more, do I understand correctly?

• Add more points to CFW trust. They spread the cost out to more points, so their dues drops. Based on the difference in points per unit, it's not significant. In theory, it becomes harder to book the home resort because they sell more points than the home resort has.
• That means fewer points at some future trust resort. This means high dues there because there are fewer points to pay for the resorts costs. In theory, it's easier to book (at least until a trust advantaged booking window) because there aren't as many points sold as the resort actually has.

The thing is there is no “total points” for the resort in the same way it is with current

The cabins are simply property in the trust and that what is bought is a share in the Cabins Resort Use Plan. They can activate more than just the cabins for use in that plan and those points is what becomes the total points for use under that specific pla.

Remember, the documents allow for them to have more than one resort use plan with different property in it

That is what makes it a bit different because DVC owns the property and remains owners.

Now, once they are activated and points assigned, that can’t change…but if they keep adding other property, or more cabins, those cabins can be slightly different.

What has to balance is that the charts must reflect the total points declared to sell for the property in that specific RTU pla …but because they can add different units to the same resort plan, those chart totals can be used together to make decisions and reallocations.

What they can’t seem to do is just add more points to the trust to sell that is not tied to new property

In that sense, it has to balance. But, I see nothing so far that requires them to keep the number of points to use the cabins, or future property, when declared for sale, to be exactly the same.

Not that I expect things to be largerly different, but what just happened in which the 30 cabins declared a different yearly total than the current 33 cabins, supports my understanding of how new property can be added as time goes on.

 

[tidefan]

The thing is there is no “total points” for the resort in the same way it is with current

The cabins are simply property in the trust and that what is bought is a share in the Cabins Resort Use Plan. They can activate more than just the cabins for use in that plan and those points is what becomes the total points for use under that specific pla.

Remember, the documents allow for them to have more than one resort use plan with different property in it

That is what makes it a bit different because DVC owns the property and remains owners.

Now, once they are activated and points assigned, that can’t change…but if they keep adding other property, or more cabins, those cabins can be slightly different.

What has to balance is that the charts must reflect the total points declared to sell for the property in that specific RTU pla …but because they can add different units to the same resort plan, those chart totals can be used together to make decisions and reallocations.

What they can’t seem to do is just add more points to the trust to sell that is not tied to new property

In that sense, it has to balance. But, I see nothing so far that requires them to keep the number of points to use the cabins, or future property, when declared for sale, to be exactly the same.

Not that I expect things to be largerly different, but what just happened in which the 30 cabins declared a different yearly total than the current 33 cabins, supports my understanding of how new property can be added as time goes on.

Even more reason not to buy here. Disney may have found a way to continually increase point requirements...

 

[MarkNC2Disney]

The thing is there is no “total points” for the resort in the same way it is with current

The cabins are simply property in the trust and that what is bought is a share in the Cabins Resort Use Plan. They can activate more than just the cabins for use in that plan and those points is what becomes the total points for use under that specific pla.

Remember, the documents allow for them to have more than one resort use plan with different property in it

That is what makes it a bit different because DVC owns the property and remains owners.

Now, once they are activated and points assigned, that can’t change…but if they keep adding other property, or more cabins, those cabins can be slightly different.

What has to balance is that the charts must reflect the total points declared to sell for the property in that specific RTU pla …but because they can add different units to the same resort plan, those chart totals can be used together to make decisions and reallocations.

What they can’t seem to do is just add more points to the trust to sell that is not tied to new property

In that sense, it has to balance. But, I see nothing so far that requires them to keep the number of points to use the cabins, or future property, when declared for sale, to be exactly the same.

Not that I expect things to be largerly different, but what just happened in which the 30 cabins declared a different yearly total than the current 33 cabins, supports my understanding of how new property can be added as time goes on.

Fascinating.

You would think Disney would feel a large responsibility to educate current and prospective owners about significant changes to its timeshare system that has worked just fine for 30+ years.

 

[Sandisw]

Fascinating.

You would think Disney would feel a large responsibility to educate current and prospective owners about significant changes to its timeshare system that has worked just fine for 30+ years.

Well, right now, with one property, it’s functioning the same. But, the info is all there for new owners and hopefully they ready it.

I have not yet sat through having my guide explain things regarding the cabins. So I don’t know how they share the ins and outs

Once another property is added, assuming it is down the line, then the explanation becomes more important.

 

[Cfabar1]

From what I am reading and learning, and the way the new POs for CFW as part of a RTU ownership via a trust, it’s not the same.

Total points can be adjusted until all rights are sold. DVD remains owner of the cabins, unlike a leasehold that sells actual ownership of the units.

The trust even allows them to reallocate points across multiple component sites.. That means they can add a future project, located elsewhere and then balance total points, based on demand, across both projects.

That is one of the big differences I see in running the trust model vs the traditional leasehold condo sale model.

Yikes!!!!

No way am I handing DVC the flexibility to reprice units in this sort of way....

I have been very opposed to the trust model for months.... This makes it even more clear to me that I will never buy anything from the so-called "trust".