It still has a slight opening, but the statement was a direct answer to a Q/A question. You should look at the statement in the context of the question.
"Will the new Poly tower be part of the existing or a new association?" The answer was,
"Our plans right now are for the new tower to be part of the existing Polynesian
Resort."
While it could still be left for interpretation, in the context of the question, it is a bolder statement. If they were still making a preliminary decision or if they were leaning to a new association, giving that answer to that question would be intentionally misleading. Just give the answer we don't know, or separate resort and association in your answer.
I'm looking at the totality of the circumstances.
Disney would have made an official statement if they wanted to release it.....
But even still, if we look at the facts the way you presented them....
ASSUMING
At that time, the statement was true: tomorrow was a new day with a new plan... and tomorrow is almost over....
I personally think too much has been read into such a small statement.
Not saying it was or wasn't true. But if it was true, why didn't the sales guides know today that the tower will be part of the same association?
Why are they referring to it as speculation?
However, if they refer to property and not the legal name of the vacation club association, they leave wiggle room.
To answer your last question, As someone else pointed out here, the members would not let the speaker out of the room without an answer. Is Disney going to release a new property on their terms or because of pressure....
A vague, no-committal statement that refers to the entire property and not the association leaves plenty of room.
Again, As others have said, if true, Disney just saved me a lot of money.
If not true, It might have changed my mind on the purchase anyway.