There is a story running that a resale broker has spotted a significant wording change in the ROFR waivers, leading to rumours that DVC may be loosening restrictions on booking Riviera with resale points.
I’ll try just posting the link, as I’m not aware of the site being banned here. Apologies in advance if this contravenes any rules.
I have read that . I would love clarification on 16 since it was 14.
Was this rumor from before or after the Reflections project was cancelled? I can see that becoming an issue because now there would be less in the “new” collection to book and it becomes a much tighter restriction.
But this is new language and they would know that? The only other current one in the works is CA?
Ya I guess that is my point, that since Disney cancelled Reflections they are realizing that the restrictions are too onerous?
Sorry I read this as “rumor”!
So the article says the broker asked for clarification. They listed Jambo & Kidani separately and included Riviera.
I don’t think this is “proof” and we need to wait for an announcement. It is intriguing though.
Right but they did not separate them as two resorts when they listed 14, so that has to be wrong?
It’s certainly resulted in rumours flying for sure! As I say I am not convinced and would hope there is an announcement to clarify it.
Actually the language suggests that Reflections is NOT actually cancelled.
Unless they have changed it because people are deeded to one or the other specifically?
Is grand California included?
That could be explained by the fact that this was introduced for the resumption of ROFR.
Reflections wasn’t announced as cancelled, it’s just they have erased all mention of it from the WDW and DVC websites, the D23 site and so on. It has just disappeared into the ether, mysteriously.
However it still supports the possible loosening of restrictions, in that it was including Riviera and Reflections. Or they meant the new Anaheim Resort.
To me, I would think the new CA DVC is more realistic since there is actual construction. Of course that could be wishful thinking.
So the ROFR waiver wording has now been amended to what it was before, 14 resorts.
Don’t suppose anyone received their ROFR documents with the wrong wording in it? I wonder if they could win a court case over it?
How could that have happened ? I wonder if they contracted out some of that work?
A poster on the DIS suggested it may have been done by a CM or manager not familiar with the job, whilst many of the team were on furlough.
I guess they will now be trawling through all contracts waived since August and re-issuing the waivers.