A few new DVC rumors

[darthokeefe]

Its simple math....DVC resorts are paid for by the owners...Disney only has to pay the upfront construction expenses..They then make them back 200 times over......They will probably never build a standard resort again after the Animation suites are finished...They also always need product to sell....Once something sold out if they dont have new product available (at WDW as this is thier Bread and Butter) than no money is coming in....They probably have two resorts planned....Non DVC people better realize that DVC is the future of the wdw resort and without DVC NOTHING WOULD BE BUILT...its not like Disney builds DVC instead of traditional hotels...DVC is better than nothing and is paid for by someone other that Disney so why not use thier land and fill it up with profit

 

[Pioneer Hall]

Any idea if they include staffing in those MF's? I figure they probably have come up with some kind of inventive way to include that, too.

It's reasonable to think that creative accounting could have all DVC properties and those attached operating at close to or at "zero expense".

Yes, staffing expenses to some degree are included. You aren't covering the cost of the entire resort since there are still cash guests, but you are paying for some of the difference.

I am in the boat of people in favor of DVC development. While I just became an owner, I have always seen the value in the program. If Disney can open resorts that have nearly the entire cost paid for by someone else while getting to maintain almost total control...how does the fan base lose? These resorts help to keep the parks running and maintenance taken care of at other areas. The demand is clearly there (if we weren't in a downtown I believe that BLT and AKL would be sold out with SSR not far behind). Considering the DVC resorts are built with the same creativity and attention the regular resorts are built I can't seem to find a problem with the continued development. All the options also allow members (and non-members) to want to come back more and stay in different places bringing in even more cash than what they might have gotten with less resorts. If I was running the show, I would try to find any way to build the "Yacht Club Villas". With BCV still being the most popular resort in the mix, it would be an immediate hit if they did this. However, I don't think there is room in that area to build (and capacity would become a big issue with all the shared services in the area).

 

[Tom]

Very true.

The DVC in question is in the final stages of planning right now. Not sure how long it will take though before it's announced. And no, it's not a high rise.

Another DVC is being tossed around as well but it's still in the blue sky stage. I'm starting to believe that there will always be one on the back burner after another one opens. As long as people keep buying them, they will keep building them.

Perhaps a remodel of an existing guest room building at an existing deluxe resort?

 

[mp2bill]

I'm calling BS on the removal of the spa. I just can't believe they would remove an amenity from the flagship resort on property.

I second the calling of BS.

 

[TheBeatles]

is wdw going to be an over developed dvc mecca at some point?

 

[jeffk410]

Im sorry, but I just really don't see any of this happening. Except maybe an expansion on GF, but I highly doubt the spa would ever go? It would be awesome for a whole new DVC resort, but time will tell. I guess dvc has been beyond successful for Disney.

 

[828tnt]

For those of you having a hard time envisioning a DVC resort between the GF and the wedding pavilion, I threw this together. Just a basic concept of how that space could be used for DVC. As you can see there is plenty of space.

what about the area just north of the gf? there's a small water inlet behind the spa, but then lots of trees. if you're looking out the monorail, it would end where the water parade floats are kept.

just throwing it out there....

 

[Phonedave]

Yes, staffing expenses to some degree are included. You aren't covering the cost of the entire resort since there are still cash guests, but you are paying for some of the difference.

It is a billed difference between the two units.

This is nothing new in the world of business. For example when I want my IT department to make a change to one of my systems, they make that change and then send me a bill.

We are all the same company, but it keeps budgets straight.

If you look at the breakdown of your yearly dues, it will list exactly how much went to what, including front desk services etc.


-dave

 

[Tom]

Any idea if they include staffing in those MF's? I figure they probably have come up with some kind of inventive way to include that, too.

It's reasonable to think that creative accounting could have all DVC properties and those attached operating at close to or at "zero expense".

Walt Disney Parks and Resorts LLC is billing Disney Vacation Club for every service they provide at a DVC resort, including front desk staff, housekeeping, laundry, horticulture, maintenance, etc.

I like to use the example of the airline formerly known as ATA, and it's travel company, Ambassadair. Ambassadair was able to offer grossly discounted day trips because ATA was "donating" the flights. When ATA filed bankruptcy the first time (reorganization) they had to sell off Ambassadair. When they did that, Ambassadair no longer got free flights for their trips, and had to actually start including those costs in their trips. They were no longer competitive, and shut their doors too.

At Disney, you're paying to help run 47 square miles of the "World" every time you buy a ticket, eat a dinner, or stay at a Disney Resort. The free things like buses, monorails and boats have to get their budgets from somewhere - so they get them by charging the profit-centers they serve.

 

[scottnj1966]

I do not see any of that happening.
Saratoga Springs is never full. Why expand?

If the spa is being removed for a DVC resort then it would be moved. GF will also have a spa, and they do need to upgrade it but I do not see Disney building anymore rooms for awhile.

River Country is a total mess. An unsafe mess for sure. I for one wish they would rebuild it for the Fort Wilderness Camp Ground guests.
I see it being cleared and cleaned up but it will be some time before Disney started building again.

 

[DVCOwner]

One last point on DVC thinking way ahead. Remember that DVC is only a 50 year agreement. So if Disney can continue to sell DVC till they get to that point, they can than "rebuild" the resort (new or major renovation) on the same location and start selling all over again. I can see them doing this in two ways. The first being extensions to existing owners as they did with OKW if the life of the resort can be done without major construction or renovations. The other would be to resell another 50 years to the current owners and marketing to new owners. Once the 50 year cycle starts than it will be a continuing cycle.

 

[_Scar]

I do not see any of that happening.
Saratoga Springs is never full. Why expand?

If the spa is being removed for a DVC resort then it would be moved. GF will also have a spa, and they do need to upgrade it but I do not see Disney building anymore rooms for awhile.

River Country is a total mess. An unsafe mess for sure. I for one wish they would rebuild it for the Fort Wilderness Camp Ground guests.
I see it being cleared and cleaned up but it will be some time before Disney started building again.

Although it isn't booked months, SSR does fill up, but it doesn't until right at last minute.

And the River Coutnry area must be fixed up for permits and such.

 

[COProgressFan]

is wdw going to be an over developed dvc mecca at some point?

I think we are quickly approaching that point right now. The talk about putting DVC in one of the quietest most secluded parts of the property (Fort Wilderness area) already speaks to that.

The thing the company accountants don't seem to take into account however, is that there already is a surplus of rooms available (45% off deluxes and villas, anyone?) and that the parks are becoming increasingly stale and outdated. While the FL expansion is a start, why would all these people who buy into DVC want to keep coming back if there is very little that is new for them to do in the parks? I truly hope that DVC owners start becoming more vocal about their concerns, much like APers out in California.

 

[s8film40]

what about the area just north of the gf? there's a small water inlet behind the spa, but then lots of trees. if you're looking out the monorail, it would end where the water parade floats are kept.

just throwing it out there....

That area is on the plans to become a much larger expansion to resorts. The canal is supposed to be widened and extended to a new lagoon with several resorts around it.

 

[yensid67]

From Mouse Owners DVC News...


Interesting about the GF situation. Does the spa do bad or is DVC really this popular enough to evict them?

My thoughts about the Grand Spa is that Disney is probably making more money on DVC's than the Spa could create in a year! So I guess since Disney owns the Spa they can choose to evict and repurpose the space for a more profitable addition!

 

[Funfy]

If any of the DVC buildings were themed after attractions at the park - like some of the new hotel rooms will be - I'd consider buying a timeshare. Like if you had a choice of a castle theme, or Spanish villa (Pirates of the Caribbean), or something like that. But otherwise I consider them a waste of money. But then, I'm single, no family. Wouldn't make much sense in any case, I guess.

Like maybe an Animal Kingdom theme?:veryconfu

 

[Phonedave]

I think we are quickly approaching that point right now. The talk about putting DVC in one of the quietest most secluded parts of the property (Fort Wilderness area) already speaks to that.

The thing the company accountants don't seem to take into account however, is that there already is a surplus of rooms available (45% off deluxes and villas, anyone?) and that the parks are becoming increasingly stale and outdated. While the FL expansion is a start, why would all these people who buy into DVC want to keep coming back if there is very little that is new for them to do in the parks? I truly hope that DVC owners start becoming more vocal about their concerns, much like APers out in California.

I think part of that stems from the fact that the deluxe resorts and the DVC draw from overlapping market bases.

People who normaly stay in a value resort are not going to buy into the DVC. Thats not a dig, it is a fact of economic ability and preference for where you stay. The majority of people who own DVC are people who would have been staying in Deluxe (or maybe moderate) units on cash. Now that those people are in the DVC, they are not staying in deluxe units. Thats why you now see the agressive pricing of deluxe resorts.

DVC still sells well, and for Disney, it must be a great business model. They get their money back on the resorts much quicker (with the buy in cost) and they know their operating costs are going to be covered.

-dave

 

[Buried20KLeague]

It is a billed difference between the two units.

This is nothing new in the world of business. For example when I want my IT department to make a change to one of my systems, they make that change and then send me a bill.

We are all the same company, but it keeps budgets straight.

If you look at the breakdown of your yearly dues, it will list exactly how much went to what, including front desk services etc.


-dave

It seems like it would be the other way around if they were trying to lower/remove operating expense for those "combined" DVC/hotel resorts... It seems Disney would bill DVC, which in turn covers those expenses directly with MF's.

That would:

1. Greatly lower Disney's "resorts divsion" expenses to operate the hotels, directly tying those costs to income (the bill to DVC).
2. Allows DVC to directly tie the expenses they're billed for at the combination resorts to the members via MF's (maybe at a profit?).

If your customer base is paying for the vast majority of expenses to run resorts directly, then a higher percentage from tickets, meals, resort services, etc, goes directly to the bottom line.

There are rules and laws governing MF's and how they have to be laid out, etc... There aren't rules like that for what they do with the other revenue they bring in. That's why I wonder if they do it this way. Follow the letter of the law on the MF's but load expenses in to the fullest extent possible, even covering "shared" resort expenses... Which allows freedom to do as they please with the other revenue they bring in, because nobody is privvy to what they do with that.

 

[huntzilla]

That area is on the plans to become a much larger expansion to resorts. The canal is supposed to be widened and extended to a new lagoon with several resorts around it.

Where did you hear this? I haven't seen or heard anything about this since about 1982.

 

[s8film40]

Where did you hear this? I haven't seen or heard anything about this since about 1982.

I should have been more clear I wasn't saying that this was actually happening now, but that it has been in the master land use plans. The point I was making is that it is unlikely they would use the space north of the GF as it could block future expansion when/if they decide to expand the canal and create the new lagoon.

Here is a look at what is in the land use plans:


I don't think they will really be building anything truly new for some time. The current trend seems to be to add to existing resorts so that these additions can use the existing resort infrastructure and reduce costs. I could however see them de-annexing this area and selling it off similar to the current Four Seasons/Golden Oaks area.