• 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!

HCC Breckenridge Lodge For Sale????

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Steamboat Bill

This just in from HCC, directly quoted in an email to me regarding the inquiry:

"Yes, the owner of the house is trying to sell. This is one of our original homes and we do not own it. However, there is a provison on the purchase that our remaining 4 years on the least be fulfilled. So this shouldn’t affect our Members at this time."

4 years remaining on the lease is a long time. This is a HUGE property that would easily rent for 3-5x my daily HCC costs.
 

vineyarder

newbie
Joined
Apr 21, 2007
Messages
243
Reaction score
0
Points
16
What is in writing preventing HCC from exceeding 100% of the properties being leased? Everyone here is trusting HCC and the other DC's to do what is right.

Hmmm... what could possibly prevent HCC (or any other DC for that matter) from exceeding 100% of the properties being leased? Perhaps mathematics??? Lets see... if HCC has 32 properties, then L (leased) + O (owned) = 32. in order to have > 100% leased, they would have to have a minimum of 33 properties leased... so if L = 33, O = -1, which could be correct under other fact circumstances, but cannot be true given the constraints of the stated problem. Therefore, there is no mathematical solution that will allow HCC (or any other DC) to exceed 100% of the properties being leased.

Laws of mathematics notwithstanding, I'm sure PerryM will have some folksy platitude about Jack the Ripper that will prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that using "felon math" it is actually possible for HCC to lease > 100% (maybe even 200 or 300%) of their properties...
 
S

Steamboat Bill

Lets see... if HCC has 32 properties, then L (leased) + O (owned) = 32. in order to have > 100% leased, they would have to have a minimum of 33 properties leased... so if L = 33, O = -1, which could be correct under other fact circumstances, but cannot be true given the constraints of the stated problem. Therefore, there is no mathematical solution that will allow HCC (or any other DC) to exceed 100% of the properties being leased.
.

Wow...that could actually be an FCAT (Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test) mathematics question.
 

Bourne

TUG Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2005
Messages
639
Reaction score
2
Points
378
Location
60601
I am even MORE amazed than ever at the tremendous MISINFORMATION posted on this forum by non-DC members. Why do so many non-DC members want to rain on our parade?

Spot on.

In the past few months, there have been more negative posts on this forum than positive.

I understand that a DC membership plan is unique and different from timeshares. It is like other club memberships and does not come with a deed. Again, someone may have a negative opinion about it. Feel free to post about it.

But this level of negativity is bordering on saying that all DC memberships are doomed for failure. Even if it is, move one after making your point. It's not your money that is on the line.
 

PerryM

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
4,282
Reaction score
2
Points
36
Texas hold'em anyone?

One question that alludes me with DC’s is the relationship to the founders – if a founder get’s divorced, for instance, can the court order the sale of the founder’s stake in the DC? Or a tax court or other courts. Since I’ve never signed a NDA with a DC just what firewalls exist to prevent this?

Is there insurance or bonds or something to insulate DC members from the follies of the DC owners?

Could the DC be lost in a card game one night and liquidated the next day by the new owner or the rules completely rewritten by the new owner and the only recourse is for members to start to exercise their exit clause?
 

Bourne

TUG Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2005
Messages
639
Reaction score
2
Points
378
Location
60601
Almost all DC ownership is with a corporation. DHH may be an exception to my knowledge but that too may be a corp.

I would never buy one owned by a family for the reason stated above. It may be run by a family but the entity that I would deal with has to be a corporation.

IMHO, any one in the DC business would create a corp. Without it, the owner stands to lose a lot more as his/her estate would be included as part of litigation proceeds.

Same reason I have a corp for my rental properties. :)
 

pwrshift

Tug Review Crew: Rookie
TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
5,529
Reaction score
29
Points
483
Location
Toronto
Resorts Owned
Marriott Manor Club - 3 weeks platinum, 2 weeks at Marriott Beachplace Towers, and 1 week at Marriott Canyon Villas

vivalour

TUG Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
327
Reaction score
0
Points
16
Location
Canada
One question that alludes me with DC’s is the relationship to the founders – if a founder get’s divorced, for instance, can the court order the sale of the founder’s stake in the DC? Or a tax court or other courts. Since I’ve never signed a NDA with a DC just what firewalls exist to prevent this?

Is there insurance or bonds or something to insulate DC members from the follies of the DC owners?

Could the DC be lost in a card game one night and liquidated the next day by the new owner or the rules completely rewritten by the new owner and the only recourse is for members to start to exercise their exit clause?

Hey PerryM: did you ever consider writing for film or TV? If you are non-union, Hollywood would probably welcome you with open arms. Lots of $$$ and opportunity for such an amazing imagination.:cheer:
 
Joined
Jun 13, 2007
Messages
382
Reaction score
0
Points
16
Location
North Carolina
I can't comment on Perry's remarks with respect to all DCs, but I can say that with Crescendo, for example, they have very good legal counsel which put in a legal limited liability structure to minimize the potential losses in the event something went awry at one of the homes. This is aside from substantial insurance and the DC rules applicable to members. Nonetheless, are there any less risks with a timeshare development? In my view, owning an interest in a DC is a lot less risky than owning an interest in a rental house.
 

tripTX

newbie
Joined
Sep 14, 2007
Messages
16
Reaction score
0
Points
1
good news about this summer

I was thrilled to hear that the current reservations will still be honored under HCC's lease agreement. We're all really looking forward to our time at the lodge. Thanks to those of you that took the time to help figure out what was going on here and putting some fears to rest.

Still a fairly new HCC member. I've just used a couple of my weeks so far. They were both great experiences, so I'm looking forward to many more trips to come.

Thanks again for your help guys. This forum has been a great source of info (when I was researching destination clubs and now as a new member).
 

tombo

Tug Review Crew: Rookie
TUG Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2007
Messages
3,224
Reaction score
2
Points
36
Location
Mississippi (but a Bama fan)
Vineyard, out of all of the facts in my posts you misquote me and somehow that makes you feel good about your DC?
My quote:
"What is in writing preventing HCC from exceeding 25%, 35%, or even 100% of the properties being leased?"
This means exceeding 25%, exceeding 35%, or even 100% of the properties could be leased as I stated. I said or even 100% of the properties being leased, I never said exceeding 100%. If you need it clarified that is what I said. Read into it whatever but everyone knows 100% is the max, we don't need a math lesson.

How about the facts. How about the fact that there was only 2 total leased units with HCC when 2 members joined years ago, but over 3 times that many leased now with the total of leased units equalling 7? My question remains the same: What is to prevent them from leasing any amount they want? There is no safeguard in place. If current actions reflect future trends, you will have more leased properties and less owned properties in the not too near future.

You had 28 owned properties with 2 leased for a total of 30 properties when Bill joined. Today with the great growth of HCC there is a total of 32 properties ( a growth of 2 locations), but only 25 of the 32 properties are owned now. This is less owned units than there were years ago. The growth of locations from 30 to 32 is by way of leasing. Simple math like you like. 7 leased now and 25 owned.

Good rebuttal making my statement sound like I advocated a possibility of over 100% being possible in your paraphrase. I don't believe even 80% leased would ever happen. I simply stated that there is nothing any member or the law could do to stop the family (oops CEO's) if they did decide to lease 100% of the locations. You gave them your money and they now can do anything they want with it because it is now their money. However you sidestep the facts that the number of units leased, and the percentage of total properties which are leased instead of owned is increasing. The total number of units owned and the percentage of units owned is dropping. These are simple mathematics and the facts are relevant, not the "goals" and promises of your DC.

You smugly state obvious mathematics while misquoting me and sidestepping every point I made. For your response to my post to be to prove that the total percentage of anything can't be over 100% (which I never said), followed up by complaining that Perry will use false facts to prove you wrong is kind of like the pot calling the kettle black. You have had 2 days to disect everything I said and the best response you can come up with is twisting my words around and proving that 100% is the maximum percentage possible.

That will help you greatly if the trend to lease more and purchase less continues because you can be confident that they will never lease more than 100% of the properties. There is one percentage you forgot. You as a member own 0% of HCC, you own 0% of any properties they buy, and you own 0% of the money you paid to join.
 

NYP

newbie
Joined
Nov 10, 2007
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Points
1
How about the facts. ........How about the fact that there was only 2 total leased units with HCC when 2 members joined years ago, but over 3 times that many leased now with the total of leased units equalling 7?
You had 28 owned properties with 2 leased for a total of 30 properties when Bill joined. Today with the great growth of HCC there is a total of 32 properties ( a growth of 2 locations), but only 25 of the 32 properties are owned now. This is less owned units than there were years ago. The growth of locations from 30 to 32 is by way of leasing. Simple math like you like. 7 leased now and 25 owned.

.

Tombo,

Before you quote something as fact, get your facts straight.

Breckenridge and Beaver Creek were two of the first four or five HCC properties(I think, but will not state this as a definate fact). So the lease rate in the early stages of the club was probably 40-50%. At that point they were practically giving away memberships. They started adding more owned homes after that point and subsequently added a few more leased homes.
The last five homes added to HCC have been: Costa Rica, Punta Mita, Puerto Vallarta, Outer Banks and Lake Tahoe. According to HCC, these are owned homes(>50% certainty, so homes 28-33 are 100% owned) . No one ever said that only 2 of the first 30 homes were leased. When Bill joined there were probably 20 or less homes (I am guessing and will not state this as fact), not 30. So please don't say "How about the facts" when you don't have them. Rather than admit you are wrong about the "fact" that HCC has a long term lease on the Breckenridge home, which does not have a cancellation clause (which you stated as probable if not factual) you continue to argue about useless points.
I apologize if I am attacking your reasoning, which is not what these forums are supposed to be about. But please, one should only state as fact what can be proven but you are free to state an opinion as such. Personal attacks are not productive.
 
S

Steamboat Bill

Is anyone else besides me getting tired of this thread?

I think we have beat this issue into the ground as we have received the official HCC answer regarding the facts of HCC leases.
 

Tedpilot

newbie
Joined
Aug 29, 2007
Messages
120
Reaction score
0
Points
16
Location
Boston
Tombo, actually, the math of percentage properties leased has significantly dropped over time! When I joined, there were five properties, two of which were leased...that's 40%. Those two were Breck & BC. Given the properties that have been acquired over a two-years time, concerning leased vs purchased, the percentage has steadily decreased. Does that not indicate that the club's financials are in fact weaning away from your great catstrophy of a predominantly leased club?

For you historians...the original properties were BC Vil Hall, Breck Lodge, Keystone West, Steamboat, and I believe a different Copper Mountain unit than what is currently on the books.

I suspect that HCC will only lease when that makes financial sense for the club....good or bad as you may see it. Thus far I would think that they have made some wise decisions, being mostly family run or not. I gather their intentions of keeping the company in good financial order is as important to them as it is to us and they will strive to make it flourish.

In the end whether or not I own any percentage of the properties is as relevant to me as if I own a hotel room that I previously used. The company stands behind the product.
 

pwrshift

Tug Review Crew: Rookie
TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
5,529
Reaction score
29
Points
483
Location
Toronto
Resorts Owned
Marriott Manor Club - 3 weeks platinum, 2 weeks at Marriott Beachplace Towers, and 1 week at Marriott Canyon Villas
Personally, I think the thread is off track, but I don't believe it should be closed only because HCC members are defensive about any form of criticism by non-HCC members. JMHO
 

PerryM

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
4,282
Reaction score
2
Points
36
Is that a Moooo I hear?

I like to keep up with DC’s since I really believe in them – theoretically.

I will wait until my “Throw away” price of about $35k for a full membership in a new DC or until Trump starts one. Anyone who can steer folks to his personal line of steaks will take on the DC industry and dominate it some weekend. It's just a matter of time.

Then many DC owners will find out just how hard the exit clause is to execute.

Until then get ready to moooooooove over folks and let The Donald take on and dominate the DC industry. Heck, he could make it a reality show and start a DC up in real time and have the contestants taking over the DC industry.

Imagine 2 teams taking on some hapless DC and out advertise, out spend, and out maneuver the stumbling DC - what a show that would be.

That’s my New Year's wish this year – a Trump DC that we will buy into.
 

Kagehitokiri

newbie
Joined
Aug 8, 2006
Messages
706
Reaction score
0
Points
16
perry, if its so easy and desirable, why havent they done it? ER has been around since 2003 IIRC, and has 3000 members. since they havent, that seems to pretty clearly imply to me that it might not be so easy or desirable.

a number of trump's condos/condohotels have sold out in hours. i just dont see how there is ANY logic to support your assertion here. why would he want to "fix" his RE strat if its not "broke"?
 
Last edited:

vivalour

TUG Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
327
Reaction score
0
Points
16
Location
Canada
I will wait until my “Throw away” price of about $35k for a full membership in a new DC or until Trump starts one. Anyone who can steer folks to his personal line of steaks will take on the DC industry and dominate it some weekend. It's just a matter of time.

Then many DC owners will find out just how hard the exit clause is to execute.

Until then get ready to moooooooove over folks and let The Donald take on and dominate the DC industry. Heck, he could make it a reality show and start a DC up in real time and have the contestants taking over the DC industry.

Imagine 2 teams taking on some hapless DC and out advertise, out spend, and out maneuver the stumbling DC - what a show that would be.

That’s my New Year's wish this year – a Trump DC that we will buy into.


IMO Trump is all about sizzle; he's a great marketer but I sure wouln't trust his steaks -- or his foray into DCs -- if it ever came to pass.
 

Kagehitokiri

newbie
Joined
Aug 8, 2006
Messages
706
Reaction score
0
Points
16
if trump or anyone else did a DC featuring large beachfront villas and unlimited use, id probably be onboard.

the "free" model created by WPR is also appealing.
 
Last edited:

PerryM

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
4,282
Reaction score
2
Points
36
perry, if its so easy (and desirable), why havent they done it? ER has been around since 2003 IIRC, and has 3000 members.

trump's condos/condohotels sell out instantly. i just dont see how there is ANY logic to support this particular assertion.

I'm sure Trump knows of this niche and has assigned folks to analyze the market for future actions. He hasn't attempted the timeshare world since I think that he views them as black sheep of real estate. DC's are another thing - they appeal to the high rollers - the ones that lose millions in his casinos and $400k to them is just pocket change.

IMO Trump is all about sizzle; he's a great marketer but I sure wouln't trust his steaks -- or his foray into DCs -- if it ever came to pass.

It might not be Trump, it could be Westin or Marriott or a hotel chain - it's just too easy to start a DC for them to ignore.

If I were a DC member I'd feel like I was in H. G. Wells' War of the Worlds - you know, the cold eyes of the Martian's looking at a the earth and wanting to take it over - waiting for the optimum time....
 
Last edited:

Kagehitokiri

newbie
Joined
Aug 8, 2006
Messages
706
Reaction score
0
Points
16
perry, youre not answering my question.

if his condos/real estate/whatever keeps selling out, and are priced at millions of dollars each, and have considerable condo fees, why would he ever even consider doing anything else? luxury real estate margins can be very good.
 

tombo

Tug Review Crew: Rookie
TUG Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2007
Messages
3,224
Reaction score
2
Points
36
Location
Mississippi (but a Bama fan)
Why would one want a thread closed? If you don't like the direction it is headed or the facts that are brought to light, then you simply quit reading the thread. To close it would be censorship and allow TUG to become a place where only popular views are welcomed.

If my facts are wrong, they were supplied by owners and they are all available to read on this thread by scrolling back. Please feel free to scroll back and read them.

Quote from Bill:
I believe only 2 out of 30 HCC propeties are leased.

Quote from Bourne:
Bill's info is dated but correct. At one time, HCC did have 2 leased properties. Him an I joined within weeks and saw the same info in documents during due diligence. Now they are higher than before as the number of properties have increased.

I have Bourne's statement that he did due diligence when he purchased and these are correct figures. If you want to say my facts are wrong then you need to tell Bourne and Bill that they are wrong because they supplied the facts. I would assume they told the truth and did due diligence to make sure the facts were correct as stated, but if you want to accuse them of throwing false facts on this thread that is your option.

What shocks me most is that half of the facts I used came from you NYP. You then tell me and I quote:
"Before you quote something as fact, get your facts straight."

Let me quote you again NYP:
"HCC currently has 33 properties which means that 7 are leased. (read the CEO statement. He says that less than 25% of 32 homes are leased)".

I didn't actually get specific and expect you to be perfect in your numbers like many here (including you) want me to do. AS you see in your "facts" you posted which I quote above, you said 33 properties at first and followed it up with 32 properties in the next sentence. I used 32 because that is the number the CEO used. I didn't accuse you of giving false facts as you have done to me. I chalked it up to a simple mistake. I guess only dissenting opinions need to be perfect in their facts. Owners can state any fact and it is acceptable unless quoted and used exactly by a non owner to prove a point that the owners don't like.

NYP another quote from you:
"Rather than admit you are wrong about the "fact" that HCC has a long term lease on the Breckenridge home, which does not have a cancellation clause (which you stated as probable if not factual) you continue to argue about useless points."
You use 33 properties and 32 properties in the same sentence and that is fine. I state that I am not sure if the home has a cancellation clause, but I would be surprised if it didn't. The next statement is that even if HCC does have a lease with no cancellation clause... What is wrong with that. Did I state flat out that there is one? NO! So if there isn't a cancellation clause I said originally that there might not be. A true statement unlike your 33 oops 32 properties.

Tedpilot Quote:
?This just in from HCC, directly quoted in an email to me regarding the inquiry:

"Yes, the owner of the house is trying to sell. This is one of our original homes and we do not own it. However, there is a provison on the purchase that our remaining 4 years on the least be fulfilled. So this shouldn’t affect our Members at this time."

You state as fact that they don't have a cancellation clause from the above statement. Read the above. HCC said THIS SHOULDN'T AFFECT OUR MEMBERS AT THIS TIME. They didn't say we have an ironclad lease for the next 4 years. It might be, but they aren't as strong in their statements as you are. However to you shouldn't affect our members at this time equals ironclad 4 year contract with no cancellation possible. HCC didn't say that at all. How about not affecting our members at this time meaning it hasn't sold yet, and if it sells the new buyer might honor it. But to you it is fact. For me to point out the possibility that the lease could be broken by quoting their response is wrong.

If you want to scold people here for using wrong facts, simply look in the mirror. Many of the facts I used were yours.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top