Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>>who doesn't but if you want to be a successful stockholder you'll want both because one has a higher cash flow right now.. otherwise you may want to not play the stockmarket- pixie dust really has no place there.<<< I'm not looking for pixie dust, I'm looking for a say in the company that USED to do unique things. DVC isn't entertainment, and it's not unique.
Originally Posted By Christi22222 Maybe I've missed past discussions on this, so am missing some perspective. I am just wondering why this is clearly so personal and inflammatory to vbdad? And a question about money and cash flow and all....are the parks truly not profitable on their own? Do we have any way of knowing this? Or is it just that the new corporate model is to make a huge percentage increase in profits year over year, year after year? I have heard so many comments about WDW being the cash cow for the rest of the company, that I assumed the parks made money. Do we have any hard information about how/where the company makes money (obviously quarterlies, but is the information available to be parsed out by division/department and whatnot)? And I guess I'm not sure that building new parks all around the world are further proof that DVC's are bringing in much needed cash flow. I guess I just thought it was typical corporate expansion in the hopes of finding new profit opportunities. (I actually would rather they stuck to just a few parks that they did well.) I'm not a fan of DVC, but I could see the cash point if it is verifiable. I'm just not sure I see that. After that initial profit at the pos, where is the income? But the land is gone. And the owners still expect a good park, which takes capital. So I am missing how this works, I guess.
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>>And the owners still expect a good park, which takes capital. So I am missing how this works, I guess<<< That's my beef with the DVC... They continue to be built up and plussed, and have a VERY strong way forward...where the parks can't even get a sure fire expansion in. Or a decent refurb.
Originally Posted By CaptainMichael >> Just to play devil's advocate for a moment, how does that explain the Vero Beach and Hilton Head properties (and upcoming one in Hawaii)? << <<<I would assume beach front locations are attractive selling points on their own, whereas Central Florida scrub and swamp isn't. If the WDW DVC had oceanfront property, the parks probably wouldn't be as important. But they don't, so they are.>>> I thought this went without saying. Now, I like the idea of DVC's worldwide because it increases the value of owning a DVC. Worldwide expansion in key cities/locations should be the goal. Not seeing how far they can overdevelop WDW property before the bubble bursts.
Originally Posted By HokieSkipper << DVC isn't entertainment, and it's not unique. >> Now, now, I wouldn't go that far. The hotels are beautiful for the most part, and WDW wouldn't be the destination that it is without them. Also, they're plenty fun. That being said the problem comes when they're the focus, rather than the parks.
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer ^ As a concept they are not unique, but I would agree that they are nice additions. But we need additions to the parks, like you said.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 Guests are being exploited with a dose of pixie dust in the shape of a villa. ---- 120,000 stupid families then eh ? and thanks for stating the obvious about the parks and DVC - did anyone suggest they would exist in Orlando without the parks ? no, I don't think so wo why this read herring argument ? maybe you should read the blah blah blah as you call it, you are missing the point that spending on one in no way lessens spending on the parks -- blah blah blah..
Originally Posted By vbdad55 "Without the parks, no one would buying overpriced timeshares in the middle of Florida." Just to play devil's advocate for a moment, how does that explain the Vero Beach and Hilton Head properties (and upcoming one in Hawaii)? ---- Ferret - it must be blah blah blah..it doesn't fit into Captain Obvious' rant..
Originally Posted By vbdad55 I'm not looking for pixie dust, I'm looking for a say in the company that USED to do unique things. DVC isn't entertainment, and it's not unique. ---- it will give you some semblene of say-- not any different than me for instance.. and DVC actually is a unique time share product in the way it is administered and some other offerings also changed after they started to allow more date flexibility as a result...but yeah, DVC sucks..that seems to be the position of some.. DVC sucks, Disney doesn't need the cash flow from them because they have a magic wallet to roll out an e-ticket a year because fanboi's say they must. Jay Rasulo is spening all the park planning money on DVC units because he has a fetish for hotel like buildings.. really I am amazed at some of the comments.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>read herring argument<< To catch a read herring, you have to bait your hook with bookworms. ; )
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>>--- it will give you some semblene of say-- not any different than me for instance.. and DVC actually is a unique time share product in the way it is administered and some other offerings also changed after they started to allow more date flexibility as a result<<< That's management. And administration of concept. I'm looking for uniqueness in terms of actual entertainment given. WDC is in the entertainment business, is it not? Seems like that comment was pulling at straws...sorry.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 << DVC isn't entertainment, and it's not unique. >> Now, now, I wouldn't go that far. The hotels are beautiful for the most part, and WDW wouldn't be the destination that it is without them. Also, they're plenty fun. That being said the problem comes when they're the focus, rather than the parks. -------------- I'm with you right up until the end-- those focusing on DVC units do not have to be the same people who would be designing rides/attractions. Disney could do both IF they wanted to...there are different presidents- VP's operations people etc. focused on each activity and one is not being sacrificed for the other. Again, if you want to say you'd like to see more focus on rides/attreactions- I'm right with you...however I also acknowledge that today's economic climate might not be the best to splurge in without a guaranteed return.. it's just common business sense. No it does not address why they didn't do more before the downturn- again acknowledged- also good business planning would have them ready to strike as soon as the recession/depression is over-- the main issue there is the two schools of thought are 1/ no one can quite tell if we are not headed for yet another dive before any recovery 2/ recovery dates are projected by some to be 10 years off- which will make no one happy. But again, the economic malaise is more important to us all than just in the way it affects WDW isn't it ?
Originally Posted By Mickeymouseclub Thanks KartoonMan...i appreciated the pause/laugh break in Post 90 perhaps it should be re-"read"
Originally Posted By vbdad55 That's my beef with the DVC... They continue to be built up and plussed, and have a VERY strong way forward...where the parks can't even get a sure fire expansion in. ------------- EE please answer me this question, if they build 2-3 more DVC units and spend the money to do so, what is the ' somewhat guaranteed' return ? Answer 22,000 families buying in every year for the last 7-8 years. If they lay out the same amount of cash for a new land- what is the 'somewhat guaranteed ' return on that outlay ? Questionable at best isn't it ? There is not another instant success Harry Potter theme out there-- not Star Wars today, not Lord of the Rings and not Disney owned property. We are in the midst of the worst economic time of our lifetimes here....will nilly spending without some comfort level of ROI just ain't gonna fly. aside from disappointment over not getting more/newer attractions what part of this do you not agree with. I acknowldge we'd all like new stuff. I'd like a Lamborghini also, but the wife says the cash flow doesn't match my desire at present.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 >>read herring argument<< To catch a read herring, you have to bait your hook with bookworms. ; ) ---- nice catch 2ooney - LOL ! oh for the edit feature ( or better typing skills)
Originally Posted By HokieSkipper <<120,000 stupid families then eh ?>> <<Answer 22,000 families buying in every year for the last 7-8 years.>> Somehow my math isn't adding up here... Honestly, you're listening to DVC salesmen for your numbers here aren't you?
Originally Posted By vbdad55 I'm looking for uniqueness in terms of actual entertainment given. WDC is in the entertainment business, is it not? ----- have you stayed at a DVC unit ? Have you seen the activities planned all day and into the night for each that supply some level of entertainment for those who do not want to commando the parks all day ? How unique do you want a place to stay to be ? No one is going to install a rolley coaster in one if that is what you are looking for. People need nice places to stay while at WDW also - otherwise there would be one huge Motel 6 on International Drive
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>>gain, if you want to say you'd like to see more focus on rides/attreactions- I'm right with you...however I also acknowledge that today's economic climate might not be the best to splurge in without a guaranteed return.. i<<<< To that, I ask if you really think that they can fill all these rooms, when current ones are discounted to get people in. I also ask...How do you know that a new attraction wouldn't have a better effect on attendance? We know that bookings are down in the Resorts. Discounts show us that. But a new attraction has traditionally garnered more buzz, more news, and thus more attendance, for the parks. Look at WWoHP. That is huge. Do you think if Uni built a new hotel there would be such excitement and success?
Originally Posted By vbdad55 Somehow my math isn't adding up here... Honestly, you're listening to DVC salesmen for your numbers here aren't you? ---- are you saying they are falsifying their financial statements ? Kind of serious allegation without a shred of evidence isn't it ? that 120,000 is likely closer to 160K right now and they didn't sell that mnany per year the first few years because the stock was not there to do so.
Originally Posted By HokieSkipper <<re you saying they are falsifying their financial statements ? Kind of serious allegation without a shred of evidence isn't it ? that 120,000 is likely closer to 160K right now and they didn't sell that mnany per year the first few years because the stock was not there to do so.>> Where are you getting your numbers from?
