star1000

So to sum it all up, I have been a huge proponent of Private Escapes through the years. I joined early, frequently spoke to prospective members and enjoyed my experience. I am disappointed with the conversion terms and the way long time supporters of the club were treated, but I am a grown up and realize that the club would rather focus on new members than making current members happy. In my view, a mistake, but I'll live. I am convninced I will continue to enjoy the homes and vacation aspect of the club, but I will not convert.

The only upside of conversion is a possible payout profit down the line. But I did not join to make money and I would rather stay even then risk losing any. Quite simply the new terms, regarding cap on days, reservations, Sat. to Sat. stay requirements, limited holidays, are highly unfavorable compared to the old terms. You almost ahve to pay to upgrade to come anywhere near close, and at much higher fees. If I was Signature or Elite, the hotel option might have some sway, but as I don't get that anyway, its a no brainer.

For me, the issue then is the new contracts. As Rich said months ago a deal is a deal. I am happy to change the name on my documetns but there are four issues out there that I see no reason to compromise on:
1. Increasing my exposure to annual rate increases.
2. Allowing a seven year reset that I did not agree to.
3. The 18 month resignation bar.
4. And finally, I would like some assurance that the Club will not try and abuse its right to create "affilliate properties" and exclude me. Hotel Program = Affilliate. Seasonal bach or ski rental, not so much.

So after all the rants and raves (mine included) this is where I come out. The terms above are contract terms for me and I see no reason to give up what was an agreement. How would Rich or Jim react if I suddenly said I will only pay half my contraced for dues??

Any thoughts? What are you doing?

Sandman

Well put. I am with you 100%. Most of the changes are minor - but given that they all move in one direction, why make 'em. Legacy lives on!

MrEthicsDude

Star1000 -- Very good post...you captured exactly my views on the merger/conversion issues. I am a bit surprised that more people are not discussing these issues...although there does seem to be a fair amount of grumbling about how us "old" members are being treated. I have no intention of signing the new documents, so it will be interesting to see what happens on Sept 1st. As a lawyer, I agree that a deal is a deal...and a simple novation to change the name of the entity is all that is required.

Kagehitokiri

when quintess acquired LRW, LRW members lost complimentary unlimited use. and if an LRW member wanted to resign instead of converting, they got the standard 80% refund after 1 year wait.

because UR and PE "merged", UR does not have the same unilateral flexibility?

DestiFan

Just saying, the more I look at the deal, this was not a merger. UR acquired PE - hence, the terms and conditions.

TarheelTraveler

This may be a stupid question, but did the PE members get to decide whether to merge/be acquired by UR? And did the PE members know roughly the terms that would be offered, with the devil in the details, or was all of it out of the blue so to speak?

DestiFan

No vote on merger. Remember, unlike Crescendo, we are/were not equity members. Only thing we were guaranteed was that our plans would be grandfathered - and they essentially have been. The biggest surprise for us is that there is little to no incentive to convert to UE plans - but oh well - that is fine as long as we get access to all new properties - which is the case.

jam

There also was no vote on the UR side. Some might have been opposed to having people with "unlimited" days joining the club. That was part of the problem with T&H.

Desties

There may very well have been a vote by UR and PE investors, but not the actual members. It's not required. It's like when Sirius and XM merged. They obviously didn't need to have the legal blessing of its subscribers, only the investors. Membership deposits aren't equity investments, especially in non-equity clubs.

I'm stuck on the same four points as star1000. I knew there would be a little give and take, but the new terms seem to be more take than give. I'm not happy, but I'm not sitting on the fence. I WILL sign the new contract if I have to.

DCTraveler

Didn't they remove all limitations on nightly fee increases as well (not just increasing exposure on dues annually and having the unlimited re-set in 7 years)? That's another substantial change -- they have taken away housekeeping and they could instantly triple nightly fees.

TarheelTraveler

Gotcha. I didn't know that, and I now better understand the frustration level. I figured that you don't have to include a member vote with a non-equity club, but I also wrongly assumed that many/most do include some level of approval of the acquirer/merger partner as part of the contract (that can easily be put into a contract). Even if not legally binding, I also assumed that there would be some sort of input from the membership or member board. Seems like that should be something that prospective and existing members should push for with the non-equity clubs to prevent your contract going to a less than desirable company for whatever reason (financial, reputation, level of real estate or hospitality experience, etc.) from the perspective of a member. I guess you could always resign, but then you lose the benefit of whatever deal you had and give up a portion of your deposit. I guess I need to rephrase a question I posted on another thread. Do any of the non-equity clubs have some sort of approval requirement?

star1000

I haven't seen that clearly spelled out. What is real key is what will be "Affilliated" properties legacy members are not allowed to use. Hotel rooms, fine. But there have been a number of season ski and summer beach renatls. Are those now core or affilliate??

squinn43

I agree 100%. I was an early and devoted joiner also. I am tempted to modify the document to include the original cap of 5% annual, sign and return. A deal is a deal. I don't care about the hotel options, I like the ability to name 10 family members, but that should result in guaranteed max usage something i would rather not have.

Desties

Yes, and to be fair, that UE perk was something available to PE only through the corporate memberships with capped usage.

I wasn't expecting a desirable feature being added to PE Legacy, beyond the great collection of homes that we now have access to, but I didn't expect nearly every term to be tweaked to our detriment.

I get the point. Maybe PE, despite its growth, wasn't a financially feasible model. That's about the only rationale that one can arrive at when this "merger of equals" finds the club with the greatest number of organic member signups caving in on nearly every term to the organically slower one. If that's the case, I just wish PE would spell that out so we welcome UE as liberators instead of screw tighteners.

I have had nothing but amazing vacation experiences in my nearly two years of DC living through PE, and now UE. The past few weeks have been unpleasant, but I'll get over it.

If anyone has had success in getting some of the new contract terms negotiated, chime in or PM me (or other members).

ASIADCMEMBER

"That's about the only rationale that one can arrive at when this "merger of equals" finds the club with the greatest number of organic member signups caving in on nearly every term to the organically slower one. If that's the case, I just wish PE would spell that out so we welcome UE as liberators instead of screw tighteners."


Actually, it really is important how you frame the issue. As a former LRW member, you will find that what appears to be *** is not really the case. In the merger with Quintess--we went from unlimited to limited days (which is a huge difference) and the annual fees were substanially higher (around 30%). I think a lot of LRW members were really unhappy. But if you looked under the covers--you would understand that although LRW had the "Brand" and "Big corporate sponser==in Cendant"-- they were getting cold feet because 22 homes and 29 members is not good membership growth. In that case, because the business model was not sustainable--they had to find an buyer--and they did. We were grandfathered in as Unlimited members with ***/ per night fee (which was fair)--Overall I think Quintess was fair, not overly generous--but they did not have to be. So one company is "saving" the other club--as non equity members without "minority shareholder" rights--you take whatever you are given and move out or lose 20% haircut to get out.

Overall the Quintess Club has worked out fantastically and in retrospect--it was a good deal for LRW members-but when you are in the middle of it--you don't have the benefit of hindsight.

If your membership is frozen in perpetuity and you don't get the "Best of things" to come and you can live with that--then you should be happy.

Each of the clubs had founders, later members, and last minute members---so probably the people who joined at the last minute are in for the biggest shock-and that is the problem with this industry now--is that there are too many surprises. Thankfully, after the merger all of the Quintess suprises have been positive ones.

Michele Zujkowski

Isn't it time that we all find a leader to present a response?

I personally will not sign any documents they delivered. The more people that have this issue, the better our chance of getting just a name change through. Does anyone have the time and skills to organize?

Kagehitokiri

welcome to the forum Michele Zujkowski.