• The TUGBBS forums are completely free and open to the public and exist as the absolute best place for owners to get help and advice about their timeshares for more than 30 years!

    Join Tens of Thousands of other Owners just like you here to get any and all Timeshare questions answered 24 hours a day!
  • TUG started 30 years ago in October 1993 as a group of regular Timeshare owners just like you!

    Read about our 30th anniversary: Happy 30th Birthday TUG!
  • TUG has a YouTube Channel to produce weekly short informative videos on popular Timeshare topics!

    Free memberships for every 50 subscribers!

    Visit TUG on Youtube!
  • TUG has now saved timeshare owners more than $21,000,000 dollars just by finding us in time to rescind a new Timeshare purchase! A truly incredible milestone!

    Read more here: TUG saves owners more than $21 Million dollars
  • Sign up to get the TUG Newsletter for free!

    60,000+ subscribing owners! A weekly recap of the best Timeshare resort reviews and the most popular topics discussed by owners!
  • Our official "end my sales presentation early" T-shirts are available again! Also come with the option for a free membership extension with purchase to offset the cost!

    All T-shirt options here!
  • A few of the most common links here on the forums for newbies and guests!

Are the Destination Points Charts a Fraud? [Minimum Stay Booking Requirements]

Fasttr

TUG Review Crew
TUG Member
Joined
Jun 26, 2013
Messages
6,259
Reaction score
3,401
Points
498
Location
Connecticut
Resorts Owned
Marriott's Grande Ocean (Enrolled)
MVC Trust Points
So, it appears that unless the resorts that have been reported to be doing this appear on the Exchange Point Schedule or are named elsewhere in the owner documents, there would appear to be no basis to enable MVCI resorts to enact any minimum duration of stays ... and the only known possibility is the Ritz St. Thomas.
Seemingly
 

Fasttr

TUG Review Crew
TUG Member
Joined
Jun 26, 2013
Messages
6,259
Reaction score
3,401
Points
498
Location
Connecticut
Resorts Owned
Marriott's Grande Ocean (Enrolled)
MVC Trust Points
The way I read this, and I admit to reading things differently than most people, is, this is speaking to me the customer having no minimum stay requirement. So, in other words, if the date is valid and shows up, and, I am of the required status, far enough in advance, etc., then, I could stay one day. I don't see where this speaks to a specific date being able to be listed as available or not? I do not see this as saying anything at all about what is available or not.
Would your reading of the excerpt change if you knew it said this right before the excerpt?

In the event a Member or Select Member requests a Use Period during the Priority 1 Period and Exchange Company is only able to confirm a portion of such requested Use Period because less than seven (7) consecutive evenings are available, Exchange Company may, upon Program Member’s request, confirm such reservation in Exchange Company’s sole discretion.

It certainly seems to me the docs are referring to restrictions of less than 7 nights.
 

Steve Fatula

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2017
Messages
3,723
Reaction score
2,718
Points
349
Location
Calera, OK
Would your reading of the excerpt change if you knew it said this right before the excerpt?

In the event a Member or Select Member requests a Use Period during the Priority 1 Period and Exchange Company is only able to confirm a portion of such requested Use Period because less than seven (7) consecutive evenings are available, Exchange Company may, upon Program Member’s request, confirm such reservation in Exchange Company’s sole discretion.

No, it would not change my reading, why should it? This is speaking to a different case. The case where I actually want a week and a week is not available. I don't see the connection you are trying to make?

Essentially, I am saying if a given date shows, say June 8, as available for a specific set of search criteria, I can indeed every time reserve 1 night, never seen a case where this is not true. In the examples shown, you change the search criteria and it shows different dates. I don't see anything in what has been posted that addresses this. You guys are talking about the conditions of showing what is available. To me, a different question and issue.

That being said, understand I am curious about why it is working the way it is. I have my suspicions. And I wish it were not that way. But nothing I have read says under what conditions Marriott must show a date as available or not.
 

Fasttr

TUG Review Crew
TUG Member
Joined
Jun 26, 2013
Messages
6,259
Reaction score
3,401
Points
498
Location
Connecticut
Resorts Owned
Marriott's Grande Ocean (Enrolled)
MVC Trust Points
No, it would not change my reading, why should it? This is speaking to a different case. The case where I actually want a week and a week is not available. I don't see the connection you are trying to make?

Essentially, I am saying if a given date shows, say June 8, as available for a specific set of search criteria, I can indeed every time reserve 1 night, never seen a case where this is not true. In the examples shown, you change the search criteria and it shows different dates. I don't see anything in what has been posted that addresses this. You guys are talking about the conditions of showing what is available. To me, a different question and issue.

That being said, understand I am curious about why it is working the way it is. I have my suspicions. And I wish it were not that way. But nothing I have read says under what conditions Marriott must show a date as available or not.
Sorry, I am not understanding what you are saying. Your comments in post #15 seems to contradict this statement from your post above....

I am saying if a given date shows, say June 8, as available for a specific set of search criteria, I can indeed every time reserve 1 night, never seen a case where this is not true.

Yet in post #15 you said this....
Even today, Sabal Palms, an example you had posted, June 8 via points, 1 night, not available. 7 nights, available.
 
Last edited:

davidvel

TUG Member
Joined
May 9, 2008
Messages
7,432
Reaction score
4,477
Points
648
Location
No. Cty. San Diego
Resorts Owned
Marriott Shadow Ridge (Villages)
Carlsbad Inn
No need to rescind. It was a free enrollment...and they gave us $75.
I have just been trying to figure out how to use our new options. I was not aware of the 10-month window for booking short stays. Now that a responder or 2 has pointed that out, I understand what I am seeing.
Good to hear. I thought you bought points. :eek:
Enrolling is great. You can now rent points for about the same or less MF that you would pay with NO huge upfront cost. Or convert, although I've found splitting and exchanging has 2-3x value of converting to DC points.
 

catharsis

TUG Member
Joined
May 23, 2010
Messages
446
Reaction score
84
Points
238
Essentially, I am saying if a given date shows, say June 8, as available for a specific set of search criteria, I can indeed every time reserve 1 night, never seen a case where this is not true.
[snip] But nothing I have read says under what conditions Marriott must show a date as available or not.

I find the suggestion in a few posts that 'shows as available' is in some way different from 'available' confusiing.

Is there ANYTHING in the docs to define such a thing as 'shows as available'? "Available" is pretty straightforward to interpret and I strongly suspect is the term used in the documents. I think introducing the concept of 'shows as available/ merely muddies the water - there is no such concept in the documents, and as I have referenced in another thread the dates are also ONLY available to book for 7 nights or more if calling in, so it would not be possible to describe this as a website-related issue as the policies and restrictions are also applied to the agents working the phone lines including the Chairmans Club lines.
 

Steve Fatula

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2017
Messages
3,723
Reaction score
2,718
Points
349
Location
Calera, OK
I find the suggestion in a few posts that 'shows as available' is in some way different from 'available' confusiing.

Is there ANYTHING in the docs to define such a thing as 'shows as available'? "Available" is pretty straightforward to interpret and I strongly suspect is the term used in the documents. I think introducing the concept of 'shows as available/ merely muddies the water - there is no such concept in the documents, and as I have referenced in another thread the dates are also ONLY available to book for 7 nights or more if calling in, so it would not be possible to describe this as a website-related issue as the policies and restrictions are also applied to the agents working the phone lines including the Chairmans Club lines.

I am not trying to defend Marriott, just so we are clear....

Hmm, that's just a term to explain what I mean, not a term I think that means anything in the documents. Let me rephrase for you. If a date is available on the screen, is that better? So, if a date can be clicked on, you can reserve 1 day, right? If it cannot be clicked on, you can't right? So, clearly, Marriott is saying it is not available for booking in one case, but not the other based on some unknown or arbitrary reasoning or policy. Nothing in the document shown thus far says what they must consider available under what conditions. If it is displaying an X, it can't be booked for the search criteria used.

Whether or not it is a website issue is trivial to decide. One merely calls and tries to reserve, which I believe you or someone else said they did and it was still not possible. So, this would say indeed, it's not a website artifact.

So, if someone can find a basis for the claim we want, which is Marriott not showing availability correctly, then we might be able to get somewhere. If it isn't there, then, sure, we can discuss and complain, but, there is no basis for it with Marriott. Unless a document says Marriott must shown allow a reservation if there is a un-reserved room or something like that... Hotels have always used interesting techniques to keep rooms off the record for booking. I've stayed at several hotels where there were no more rooms. Where there are no more rooms, yet I still stay there, clearly there were and clearly they were considered unavailable for booking for reasons known only to the hotel. We know in MVCI case, for example, that some inventory is reserved for weeks vs points. In that case, it's clear that it may show as not available however, one could reserve their week for the same date. I suspect some inventory is reserved for longer stays. The question is, does this violate anything in the governing documents. It violates nothing posted yet.
 

kds4

TUG Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2011
Messages
1,803
Reaction score
401
Points
293
Location
USA
Resorts Owned
Marriott Weeks and DC Points
I am not trying to defend Marriott, just so we are clear....

Hmm, that's just a term to explain what I mean, not a term I think that means anything in the documents. Let me rephrase for you. If a date is available on the screen, is that better? So, if a date can be clicked on, you can reserve 1 day, right? If it cannot be clicked on, you can't right? So, clearly, Marriott is saying it is not available for booking in one case, but not the other based on some unknown or arbitrary reasoning or policy. Nothing in the document shown thus far says what they must consider available under what conditions. If it is displaying an X, it can't be booked for the search criteria used.

Whether or not it is a website issue is trivial to decide. One merely calls and tries to reserve, which I believe you or someone else said they did and it was still not possible. So, this would say indeed, it's not a website artifact.

So, if someone can find a basis for the claim we want, which is Marriott not showing availability correctly, then we might be able to get somewhere. If it isn't there, then, sure, we can discuss and complain, but, there is no basis for it with Marriott. Unless a document says Marriott must shown allow a reservation if there is a un-reserved room or something like that... Hotels have always used interesting techniques to keep rooms off the record for booking. I've stayed at several hotels where there were no more rooms. Where there are no more rooms, yet I still stay there, clearly there were and clearly they were considered unavailable for booking for reasons known only to the hotel. We know in MVCI case, for example, that some inventory is reserved for weeks vs points. In that case, it's clear that it may show as not available however, one could reserve their week for the same date. I suspect some inventory is reserved for longer stays. The question is, does this violate anything in the governing documents. It violates nothing posted yet.

I see what you are getting at. MVCI cannot create minimum stay requirements except as outlined in the exchange procedures (and those procedures seem to exclude all but 1 property that we know of at this point). However, we know MVCI holds back some inventory for certain purposes such as release dates (and presumably not to operate a minimum stay requirement). My thought is that if I can see a unit is available for 7 days, Sunday through Saturday then I should hypothetically be able to make as many as 7 single night reservations with that same week (IAW with my ownership status).

The problem is we know from examples already provided that MVCI is preventing this in at least some cases (and I don't think it is a 'just holding back some inventory' issue). If the inventory were just being held back, I should not be able to see it at all. The fact that we can see it as available for 7 nights but not 1 or 2 'smells' like a constructive minimum stay requirement.

It it looks like a duck and walks like a duck ... well, quack.
 

catharsis

TUG Member
Joined
May 23, 2010
Messages
446
Reaction score
84
Points
238
I see what you are getting at. MVCI cannot create minimum stay requirements except as outlined in the exchange procedures (and those procedures seem to exclude all but 1 property that we know of at this point).

The fact that we can see it as available for 7 nights but not 1 or 2 'smells' like a constructive minimum stay requirement.
I did just want to add that I was expressly told by a rep on the Chairmans club line (after speaking to a supervisor) that I was only able to book 7 nights and not 1 due to a minimum stay requirement imposed by the resort.

I don't think Marriott are hiding this in any way.
 

Steve Fatula

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2017
Messages
3,723
Reaction score
2,718
Points
349
Location
Calera, OK
I see what you are getting at. MVCI cannot create minimum stay requirements except as outlined in the exchange procedures (and those procedures seem to exclude all but 1 property that we know of at this point). However, we know MVCI holds back some inventory for certain purposes such as release dates (and presumably not to operate a minimum stay requirement). My thought is that if I can see a unit is available for 7 days, Sunday through Saturday then I should hypothetically be able to make as many as 7 single night reservations with that same week (IAW with my ownership status).

The problem is we know from examples already provided that MVCI is preventing this in at least some cases (and I don't think it is a 'just holding back some inventory' issue). If the inventory were just being held back, I should not be able to see it at all. The fact that we can see it as available for 7 nights but not 1 or 2 'smells' like a constructive minimum stay requirement.

It it looks like a duck and walks like a duck ... well, quack.

Sure, and that undoubtedly is the case. But, there is nothing that I have read that says they can't impose a resort minimum stay requirement for certain dates. If you can find that in the documents, you have a case, otherwise, not sure what can be done.
 

gblotter

TUG Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2008
Messages
904
Reaction score
54
Points
238
Resorts Owned
Mountainside x 2
Maui Ocean Club x 2
Ko Olina Beach Club x 1
I did just want to add that I was expressly told by a rep on the Chairmans club line (after speaking to a supervisor) that I was only able to book 7 nights and not 1 due to a minimum stay requirement imposed by the resort. I don't think Marriott are hiding this in any way.
So Marriott has crafted contract language that allows them to arbitrarily change the terms whenever they feel like it?
one can work around it as mentioned in other threads simply by booking lots of nights and then cancelling the ones one doesn't want.
So if I book a full week and then later call to cancel the unwanted nights, is the Chairman's Club rep going to tell me I can't do that?
 

JIMinNC

TUG Review Crew: Expert
TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
4,879
Reaction score
4,429
Points
599
Location
Marvin, NC (Charlotte) & Hilton Head Island, SC
Resorts Owned
Marriott:
Maui Ocean Club
Waiohai Beach Club
Barony Beach Club
Abound ClubPoints
HGVC:
HGVC at Sea World
I did just want to add that I was expressly told by a rep on the Chairmans club line (after speaking to a supervisor) that I was only able to book 7 nights and not 1 due to a minimum stay requirement imposed by the resort.

I don't think Marriott are hiding this in any way.

Sure, and that undoubtedly is the case. But, there is nothing that I have read that says they can't impose a resort minimum stay requirement for certain dates. If you can find that in the documents, you have a case, otherwise, not sure what can be done.


Below is what I found in the Trust Reservation Procedures, basically it's what Fasttr posted earlier. It gives them the right to establish minimum stays, but as I read it, it sounds like that has to be disclosed in the "Points Schedule." I've also included their definition of "Points Schedule".


Except as otherwise provided in these Reservation Procedures, and subject to applicable minimum durations of stay for certain Markets or at certain Components as shown on the Point Schedule, there are no minimum length-of-stay requirements for Use Periods reserved by Executive Owners, Presidential Owners and Chairman’s Club Owners during the Priority 1 Period.
...

Point Schedule means the annual schedule(s) promulgated by the Association Delegee which identifies the pertinent information for the Trust Reservation System in a given year including setting forth the number of Points for Use required to reserve Use Periods, all as amended by the Association Delegee from time to time. If Single Use Points are used to make a reservation, additional fees may be required to complete the reservation in order to offset any applicable taxes.

As best as I can find, there is no disclosure of minimum stay requirements in the schedules that are shown on the Owners Website or in the printed points book that the sales offices sometimes give out.
 

Steve Fatula

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2017
Messages
3,723
Reaction score
2,718
Points
349
Location
Calera, OK
"there are no minimum length-of-stay requirements for Use Periods reserved by Executive Owners, Presidential Owners and Chairman’s Club Owners during the Priority 1 Period."

That means literally that when I make a reservation, which obviously has to be on available dates, I can make one for 1 night, i.e., no minimum. That does not say the exchange company can't determine what is available! Please tell me why I am reading this wrong. In no way shape or form IMHO does this say anything about what is determined to be available or not. Also, this is not an issue of the resort having a 3 day minimum, it is merely an issue of sometimes, a given date can't be reserved for 1 night. Other dates can be, so, it's not the same as resort wide minimums
 

JIMinNC

TUG Review Crew: Expert
TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
4,879
Reaction score
4,429
Points
599
Location
Marvin, NC (Charlotte) & Hilton Head Island, SC
Resorts Owned
Marriott:
Maui Ocean Club
Waiohai Beach Club
Barony Beach Club
Abound ClubPoints
HGVC:
HGVC at Sea World
I also just found this language:

Trust Manager and Program Manager shall have the right to forecast anticipated reservation and use of the Accommodations of the Trust Plan and are authorized to reasonably demand balance, reserve, deposit, or rent the Accommodations for the purpose of facilitating the use or future use of the Accommodations or other benefits made available to Trust Owners through the Trust Plan or an Exchange Program.

Program Manager has the right to establish priority lists, lottery systems, or other alternative methods of reserving Accommodations in an effort to ensure the fair and equitable reservation and use of Accommodations during holidays, events, and other high demand periods. If implemented, access to certain Use Periods by a Trust Owner may be restricted in a given year based upon the Trust Owner’s ranking in a lottery or some other allocation methodology established by Program Manager. Program Manager may establish an administrative fee for this service. Program Manager may restrict the number of weeks or days that may be reserved by a Trust Owner during holidays, events, or other high demand periods and Program Manager may create alternate reservation procedures and the Point Schedule may be revised on a Market-specific or Component-by-Component basis to account for discrepancies in Markets, legal structures, travel patterns, or other factors as determined by Program Manager from time to time in its sole discretion.

There was also this:

Program Manager may apply additional weekend reservation restrictions on a Market-specific or Component-by-Component basis and may restrict the number of Accommodations that may be reserved by a Trust Owner for weekend-only reservations at any one time.

While I don't read this language to specifically address the question being debated, it does seem to give MVC considerable latitude to manage the inventory in whatever way they want for the "fair and equitable" use of the Accommodations. I would think if they were ever challenged on this, they would likely point to this kind of language as the language giving them the freedom to do what they are doing. There may be other relevant language that we haven't found yet.
 

JIMinNC

TUG Review Crew: Expert
TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
4,879
Reaction score
4,429
Points
599
Location
Marvin, NC (Charlotte) & Hilton Head Island, SC
Resorts Owned
Marriott:
Maui Ocean Club
Waiohai Beach Club
Barony Beach Club
Abound ClubPoints
HGVC:
HGVC at Sea World
"there are no minimum length-of-stay requirements for Use Periods reserved by Executive Owners, Presidential Owners and Chairman’s Club Owners during the Priority 1 Period."

That means literally that when I make a reservation, which obviously has to be on available dates, I can make one for 1 night, i.e., no minimum. That does not say the exchange company can't determine what is available! Please tell me why I am reading this wrong. In no way shape or form IMHO does this say anything about what is determined to be available or not. Also, this is not an issue of the resort having a 3 day minimum, it is merely an issue of sometimes, a given date can't be reserved for 1 night. Other dates can be, so, it's not the same as resort wide minimums

I see how it could be read that way. Not sure how it was intended.
 

kds4

TUG Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2011
Messages
1,803
Reaction score
401
Points
293
Location
USA
Resorts Owned
Marriott Weeks and DC Points
So, if MVCI can do what they are doing in regards to imposing minimum stay requirements owners are left with resorting to the 'work around' when/where required to be able to stay less than the resort minimum ...
 

Steve Fatula

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2017
Messages
3,723
Reaction score
2,718
Points
349
Location
Calera, OK
So, if MVCI can do what they are doing in regards to imposing minimum stay requirements owners are left with resorting to the 'work around' when/where required to be able to stay less than the resort minimum ...

The examples are not a resort minimum, they are a specific date minimum, other dates at the same resort appear unaffected, at least the ones I looked at. But, within those confines, yes, that would be a workaround if you simply must have that date. What they are likely trying to do is achieve a higher level of occupancy, which is good for more people. Bad for those who wanted that exact date for whatever reason.
 

catharsis

TUG Member
Joined
May 23, 2010
Messages
446
Reaction score
84
Points
238
I'm sorry I don't understand what you are getting at.

Would you mind telling me whether you consider June 8th in Sabal Palms to be available or not in your definition of 'available' ... Or is your point essentially that. ...

"One is always eligible to book a single night if the night is available to be booked for a single night"

Is available really subjective?

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk
 

answeeney

TUG Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2012
Messages
213
Reaction score
10
Points
128
Location
Wirral, UK
This does seem to come down to sophistry.

Marriott: You can book a day, several days, whatever we have available, and we have a whole week available for you to choose from.

Customer (after signing up): Can I book those three days please?

Marriott: No sorry we only have a whole week available.
 

BocaBoy

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2009
Messages
5,332
Reaction score
410
Points
368
Location
Wisconsin
Resorts Owned
Grand Chateau
The examples are not a resort minimum, they are a specific date minimum, other dates at the same resort appear unaffected, at least the ones I looked at. But, within those confines, yes, that would be a workaround if you simply must have that date. What they are likely trying to do is achieve a higher level of occupancy, which is good for more people. Bad for those who wanted that exact date for whatever reason.
I have not studied the documents on this point, nor do I have any interest in doing so, but the language I have highlighted above in bold is why I have a hard time getting excited about this issue. I don't see any nefarious motives in this, and it does not appear to affect MVCI's profit either way. I have noticed this a few times when trying to book off season nights on Hilton Head island and never gave it a second thought. That is just the way I look at it.
 

answeeney

TUG Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2012
Messages
213
Reaction score
10
Points
128
Location
Wirral, UK
I guess this is the eternal political conflict: Should we respect all rights or should we give a shrug to some where there is a greater good at stake? In this particular case is higher occupancy at resorts a greater good that trumps buyers rights?
 

JIMinNC

TUG Review Crew: Expert
TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
4,879
Reaction score
4,429
Points
599
Location
Marvin, NC (Charlotte) & Hilton Head Island, SC
Resorts Owned
Marriott:
Maui Ocean Club
Waiohai Beach Club
Barony Beach Club
Abound ClubPoints
HGVC:
HGVC at Sea World
I have not studied the documents on this point, nor do I have any interest in doing so, but the language I have highlighted above in bold is why I have a hard time getting excited about this issue. I don't see any nefarious motives in this, and it does not appear to affect MVCI's profit either way. I have noticed this a few times when trying to book off season nights on Hilton Head island and never gave it a second thought. That is just the way I look at it.

I tend to agree with this line of thinking. While it can be frustrating not to be able to book a shorter stay for any date from an individual owner's perspective, I can see where if this practice were allowed to happen with no moderation or regulation by MVC, so many weeks could be "broken" by Executive and higher level owners so as to make booking longer stays and full weeks more difficult for everyone, thus damaging the integrity of the entire points booking/exchanging system. It benefits no one to have a myriad of orphan nights scattered around the system, making it difficult for owners to string together 7-night or longer stays.

Just because you can't book a single night or a three night stay over a weekend, but can book a full week, does not mean that there were no units that could have had their weeks broken. It could be as simple as if a hypothetical resort had 100 units in a given view category/unit size for a given week, MVC may decide they will only allow some % of those 100 unit/weeks to be broken into shorter blocks, thus ensuring that there will be some number of units available for full week bookings. As I read the language I posted above, I'm not an attorney, but it would seem to give MVC the leeway to do things like that to protect the integrity of the overall system.

I guess this is the eternal political conflict: Should we respect all rights or should we give a shrug to some where there is a greater good at stake? In this particular case is higher occupancy at resorts a greater good that trumps buyers rights?

I don't see the conflict/issue as buyer/owner rights versus higher occupancy per se. The competing rights would seem to be the rights of owners who want to book individual nights or weekend stays versus the rights of those who want to book full weeks. By limiting to some extent the amount of "breakage" they will allow, MVC could simply be trying to offer a balance between the rights of those two groups of owners/buyers. I have no issue with that, and I say that as someone who sees one of the main benefits of the DC Points system as being able to book shorter than 7 night stays. We have used that option frequently in our four years as owners, even though we have to wait until 10 months to do so.

It's sorta like I have a right to do certain things with or on my property, until it starts impacting the way you use or enjoy your property. That's why we have laws and ordinances that set ground rules for how we as citizens of a neighborhood, town, state, or country impact each other. MVC may just be trying to balance the rights of those who want to stay for a week versus those who want to stay for a weekend.
 

answeeney

TUG Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2012
Messages
213
Reaction score
10
Points
128
Location
Wirral, UK
As has been pointed out higher up the thread, the breakage is supposed to be covered by the skim. Anyway, whilst I am not averse to the greater good, I do expect to know the rules before I buy in. The point here is that Marriott appear to have made the rules as obscure as they possibly could.
 

JIMinNC

TUG Review Crew: Expert
TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
4,879
Reaction score
4,429
Points
599
Location
Marvin, NC (Charlotte) & Hilton Head Island, SC
Resorts Owned
Marriott:
Maui Ocean Club
Waiohai Beach Club
Barony Beach Club
Abound ClubPoints
HGVC:
HGVC at Sea World
As has been pointed out higher up the thread, the breakage is supposed to be covered by the skim. Anyway, whilst I am not averse to the greater good, I do expect to know the rules before I buy in. The point here is that Marriott appear to have made the rules as obscure as they possibly could.

Yes, the skim covers breakage, but the amount of skim they take only covers a certain amount of breakage. If breakage were allowed to "run wild", then the skim would no longer be adequate to cover it. Keeping the breakage to a level that can be covered by the existing skim, could easily be construed as a necessary management tool to preserve system integrity. I don't think anyone would be happy if they doubled the skim % to account for higher breakage.
 

answeeney

TUG Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2012
Messages
213
Reaction score
10
Points
128
Location
Wirral, UK
Mmm...maybe you’re right, but this seems to follow a familiar pattern. Buyers think they are getting something of significant value (think the option to convert to MRPs) only to have that value gradually but remorselessly eroded.
 
Top