New DVC at Grand Floridian...

[fosse76]

Does it really bother you that much?

Perhaps some folk can afford it. :shrug:

What are you talking about? NOWHERE in my post did I imply nor flat-out state I was bothered by it.

Fosse76 - Sounds like you're not understanding the points purchase process. The only need for a 'subsequent' points purchase is if you want to have a larger number of points per year. Once you have bought into DVC, you continue to get the number of points you bought each year for the duration of your contract. Or maybe I just misread your post...

I understand perfectly. You make your initial points purchase, but you can buy more points afterwards. I know not everyone does, but that's what I meant by subsequent points purchases.

 

[Pumbas Nakasak]

What are you talking about? NOWHERE in my post did I imply nor flat-out state I was bothered by it.



I understand perfectly. You make your initial points purchase, but you can buy more points afterwards. I know not everyone does, but that's what I meant by subsequent points purchases.

Really the impression I get from your choice of words, the over all accusatory tone of your post and what appears to be a further answer bordering on the hysterical would seem to indicate otherwise.

 

[Biff215]

I did the math for myself about two years ago, and since I always go alone and stay at a Value, I couldn't justify the cost. My four trips to Disney per year still cost less than JUST the annual dues of DVC. I have no doubt people probably can save money with DVC. I'm just not one of them. Heck, I don't even save money with Tables in Wonderland, and that's only $75!

My annual dues for 175 points are only around $800 so they must have been four really short trips! I get close to two weeks each year out of my points, and that's typically during peak seasons and in good rooms/resorts.

 

[DizFanatic]

I can't believe what a heated debate DVC can create. Yes I am a member and enjoy it. And yes, it definitely is not for everyone. We used to stay All Star, but now as a family of 6, there are not many options.

We've stayed off property, and although the resort was nice, it was missing the Disney Magic that we pay so much in airfare to enjoy. We can stay at non-Disney resorts anywhere else, so that leads us back to options. And there's the in-room laundry (in 1 BR and larger) which is a huge plus for us.

So although I won't argue about the cost, the resorts are amazing, we've stayed at all DVC resorts except BLT and Vero Beach (so far) and it works for our family. It was also much cheaper when we joined in 2001 (Wilderness lodge is our home resort)

So anyway, let's all be friends and agree to disagree about wether DVC is right for each of us. Disney has something for everyone. Enjoy what you like and just ignore the rest. :wave:

 

[donaldduck1967]

There are a limited number of places for a family of 5 to stay on WDW property - ASMu, POFQ, BLT, AKL, OKW, Cabin at FW, and soon the new AoA. In the long term, buying into DVC is cheaper than paying for the 2bd DVC (Deluxe) rooms, even with the current discounts. So your options become, buy into DVC, pay more for your rooms and stay at the same places you would with DVC, get 2 separate rooms, or only stay at ASMu, POFQ or a cabin at FW. If AKL is too far for you, I bet the cabins fall into the same category. I haven't stayed at POFQ, but with 3 kids, I can't see that being comfortable for a week.

We bought DVC because we have a family of 5. It made a lot more sense to us, and opened up a bunch of vacatoin options that we wouldn't have without DVC. Now that the kids are getting bigger (currently 7, 10 and 12), I'm thrilled that we can combine points for a larger room for the next few years when we need the space, and then go back to multiple weeks a year after they have moved out of the house.

Wilderness Lodge, Sarasota Springs, BCV are others.

 

[Phonedave]

I agree with everything you said, but keep in mind DVC can't wait until a resort is sold out before building another. This would lead to no inventory to sell and put their employees out of work. Just recently they had 3 or 4 resorts on sale at the same time. But your reasoning is totally correct that occupancy is not really important when the resort is paid for.

The also get more inventory from their ROFR purchases.

However I do believe there is a waiting list for most sold out resorts, so I assume when ROFR points come in, they just pick up the phone and have a pretty much instant sale.

I also don't know how many points they grab with their ROFR option.


-dave

 

[fosse76]

My annual dues for 175 points are only around $800 so they must have been four really short trips! I get close to two weeks each year out of my points, and that's typically during peak seasons and in good rooms/resorts.

The hotel room for my last four trips to WDW cost slightly less than $1000.00. That was for four nights each trip. So while i is more than the annual dues, it is significantly less than having purchased into DVC.

 

[fosse76]

Really the impression I get from your choice of words, the over all accusatory tone of your post and what appears to be a further answer bordering on the hysterical would seem to indicate otherwise.

There was NOTHING accusatory in my original post nor was there anything in my response that was hysterical. Maybe you should purchase a dictionary and look up the meaning of those words.

 

[Pumbas Nakasak]

There was NOTHING accusatory in my original post nor was there anything in my response that was hysterical. Maybe you should purchase a dictionary and look up the meaning of those words.

Sorry if I lack your obvious academic prowess. But to my layman's eyes you do seem rather determined to prove the lack of value in DVC. Whether thats to reinforce your decision not to invest and the reasoning behind it or as previously stated trying to question other motives in an accusatory manner.

And using words like " tried to use the discounts to justify the dues" indicates that you are questioning the reasoning and motive of other posters, responding to the thread, which having consulted a thesaurus seems to support the use of the word accusatory. Also many of the other phrases could be deemed as snide or mocking.

And again perhaps some folk buy in because they can afford to, but I do find it odd that having done this they are regularly asked to justify this commitment by people who decide against it. Some folk stay at deluxe resorts cant they make do with Op or somewhere? Perhaps issues with the value of DVC should be addressed to those that sell it.

Some folk buy for emotional reasons but Im not sure what formula that would come under on a spread sheet.

 

[captainkidd]

Sorry if I lack your obvious academic prowess. But to my layman's eyes you do seem rather determined to prove the lack of value in DVC.

No more so than some DVC owners determined to prove the opposite.

It's a silly arguement. There is no right or wrong to DVC.

 

[fosse76]

Sorry if I lack your obvious academic prowess. But to my layman's eyes you do seem rather determined to prove the lack of value in DVC. Whether thats to reinforce your decision not to invest and the reasoning behind it or as previously stated trying to question other motives in an accusatory manner.

You obviosly ignored the statement where I stated that I had no doubt people probably save money with DVC, and that I'm not one of them. I offered why it didn't work for me as an example to illustrate that it isn't always a savings.

And using words like " tried to use the discounts to justify the dues" indicates that you are questioning the reasoning and motive of other posters, responding to the thread, which having consulted a thesaurus seems to support the use of the word accusatory. Also many of the other phrases could be deemed as snide or mocking.

I was referring to a post where the poster was itemizing the dollar amount of savings and placing it under the umbrella of the annual dues. That poster was justifying the dues. I said that it doesn't count as savings, since the money being spent on dues covers the discounts (and the dues were still $200 more after the applied discounts). So over all, there was no money saved. The poster didn't go into overall room costs over the course of the lease, so based on Annual dues alone, there was still no savings for that poster, since the savings were merely transferred into the cost of the annual dues.

And again perhaps some folk buy in because they can afford to, but I do find it odd that having done this they are regularly asked to justify this commitment by people who decide against it. Some folk stay at deluxe resorts cant they make do with Op or somewhere? Perhaps issues with the value of DVC should be addressed to those that sell it.

I was questioning the people who came up with their justification by using numbers that weren't adding up too clearly. One post claimed the value of his/her rental was $79/night. It was followed by a statement that it was based on dues. You can't value the cost of the room on only dues, since DVC can cost 10s of thousands of dollars, those amounts must be included in rental value. I was simply trying to ascertain whether or not the poster was including that initial investment, since it didn't really make sense to me. And had you actually read my post, it was quite clear I was simply asking.

Some folk buy for emotional reasons but Im not sure what formula that would come under on a spread sheet.

That's irrelevant. People who have crunched the numbers for themselves and can't find a savings are trying to ascertain from people claiming a large savings how they arrived at it. I try to make numbers work all the time, sometimes they do and sometimes they don't. I clearly stated in my post that I think DVC does have a savings. For me, DVC doesn't work. It's cheaper for me to stay at a Value Resort. I can't even justify Tables in Wonderland, because based on my eating habits and tastes I wouldn't save as much as the cost...or it would come out even and therefore be pointless. But that's just for me. I have a friend who will earn the savings back after two meals. You seem to be the one with the hysterical response to my post.

 

[wm49rs]

That's irrelevant. People who have crunched the numbers for themselves and can't find a savings are trying to ascertain from people claiming a large savings how they arrived at it. I try to make numbers work all the time, sometimes they do and sometimes they don't. I clearly stated in my post that I think DVC does have a savings. For me, DVC doesn't work. It's cheaper for me to stay at a Value Resort. I can't even justify Tables in Wonderland, because based on my eating habits and tastes I wouldn't save as much as the cost...or it would come out even and therefore be pointless. But that's just for me. I have a friend who will earn the savings back after two meals. You seem to be the one with the hysterical response to my post.

And just how is the emotional aspect irrelevant? Because people use emotions in making their decisions as opposed to simply "crunching numbers?"

 

[Pumbas Nakasak]

Nope I've checked and this does appear to be a hysteria free zone. But at least youve taken the time to respond to where I formed my opinion on your posts and the nature of them.

But so as we are clear, the "numbers" never worked for me either, there are simply too many variables that can influence things. Discounts currently available may be curtailed, Disney can hike dues with only limited influence from owners.

If you are having to justify a purchase using a spread sheet and calculator then Id say that it is marginal that any benefit will be achieved even in the short term.

And to be honest anyone that bases any major financial decision, like DVC purchase, on some comments on a message board by some opinionated no marks shouldn't be allowed to spend money anyway.

But like everything that is just my opinion, in a calm non accusatory tone of course.

 

[majortom1981]

hmm

Why at the grand floridian and not the polynesian? Most people have been waiting for one at the poly. Does the grand floridian have a lot of rooms that are regularly not being paid for?

 

[awilliams4]

Another thing that needs to be considered is how much people are willing to change their lifestyles to pay for/own DVC.

Over the past 24 months, we have purchased 200 BCV and 260 BLT points. We have not went out to eat, only drank water, coupons, coupons, coupons, don't go anywhere but hang out at WDWMagic, Mouseowners, the DIS, etc. Packed our lunches EVERY day for work, no movies, canceled Netflix, moved from Cable to Satalitte with only the basic programming, etc. Just so we could pay for DVC as quickly as possible. Today, we own all 460 points and paid maybe $300 in total finance charges.

If we took all those capital dollars and did something boring instead like, put it in a 2% CD, we just wouldn't have the same amount. The LOVE for wanting to own DVC made us save even more and any CD ever would.

 

[Funfy]

Basically it boils down to how you want to spend your money. We didn't even "crunch" the numbers. The only numbers we considered were whether we could afford it or not. DVC is the way we want to vacation. If it were strictly whether it made financial sense-the auto industry would not exist except for base cars, housing etc. Regardless of whether anyone considers it a bargain, value or ripoff, it is probably one of the most successful ventures Disney has had in awhile. The only number crunching I do is this way-we are about to go stay in a 2-bedroom & 1-bedroom (for in-laws) vacation villa AK-Savannah view. The rate for these rooms is over $8,000 with tax. That is how we justify DVC. Stop hating on the people if it works for them. We are not stupid-it is just how we want to spend our money.

 

[Biff215]

The hotel room for my last four trips to WDW cost slightly less than $1000.00. That was for four nights each trip. So while i is more than the annual dues, it is significantly less than having purchased into DVC.

Since that's about $62/night, I assume you are either at one of the value resorts or off property. Of course one could argue that DVC offers superior accomodations to a value, but that isn't important if you're not concerned about where you stay. Just keep in mind you can't count on room rates and discounts to continue the way they are now. My annual dues will also rise, but probably not as substantially if travel picks up.

Please understand I'm not trying to argue or convince you of anything. DVC simply isn't for everyone, and you seem to be doing fine without it. Personally, we were spoiled by the deluxe resorts long ago and we prefer to stay there when possible. This is why we will almost always save money with DVC over the long run. It really isn't fair to compare it to any other type of accomodation.

 

[fosse76]

Nope I've checked and this does appear to be a hysteria free zone. But at least youve taken the time to respond to where I formed my opinion on your posts and the nature of them.

But so as we are clear, the "numbers" never worked for me either, there are simply too many variables that can influence things. Discounts currently available may be curtailed, Disney can hike dues with only limited influence from owners.

If you are having to justify a purchase using a spread sheet and calculator then Id say that it is marginal that any benefit will be achieved even in the short term.

And to be honest anyone that bases any major financial decision, like DVC purchase, on some comments on a message board by some opinionated no marks shouldn't be allowed to spend money anyway.

But like everything that is just my opinion, in a calm non accusatory tone of course.

It's all a numbers-crunching game if people are buying into it to save money. That goes for a lot of things also. Just look at the room discount vs. Free Dining debates. DVC doesn't work for me because I always stay at a Value and have always used a discount. It might work for others, and still others probably don't care if they are saving money.

Since that's about $62/night, I assume you are either at one of the value resorts or off property.

I ALWAYS stay on property. And that seems about right for the average nightly rate that I spend. It would probably be a little higher, but my trip last January was $49/night at a Value. The phone rep was jealous!

Of course one could argue that DVC offers superior accomodations to a value, but that isn't important if you're not concerned about where you stay.

No doubt, but I am not as picky. At least at Disney, the rooms are pretty much guaranteed to be clean and safe. And I don't have to rent a car. That's all that matters to me.

Just keep in mind you can't count on room rates and discounts to continue the way they are now. My annual dues will also rise, but probably not as substantially if travel picks up.

That's true, though I try to only go during the off-season, so I am not as concerned about discounts. I think at worst I'm not losing or gaining anything by not going DVC. If I were into the Deluxes, then I would most definitely look into it more seriously.

 

[TP2000]

It sounds like they might want to duplicate the success they had by building a new DVC wing tacked on to the Grand Californian Hotel & Spa at Disneyland last year. If so, this should be a relative slam dunk for them.

That said, I went and spent an afternoon on the DVC tour/salespitch a few months ago at the Grand Californian. I don't quite understand why some people buy into it, and primarily Disney vacations is not something I want to be locked into for decades to come, so I passed on it. Those timeshare things always seem to have a whiff of pyramid scheme to me, and I got that even from Disney's otherwise professional sales approach.

But, to each his own. It must make financial sense to enough people to make it work for Disney.

 

[Biff215]

It sounds like they might want to duplicate the success they had by building a new DVC wing tacked on to the Grand Californian Hotel & Spa at Disneyland last year. If so, this should be a relative slam dunk for them.

I agree with you, but in actuality the two resorts couldn't be more different with the exception of them being the "flagship" resorts. The Grand Californian is a single building, much like WDW's Lodges. GF is a different animal since it's broken into so many buildings. DVC add-ons have typically been to single building resorts. That to me is what makes DVC a little odd there (and at Poly), not to say they won't make it happen if they want to.