Club sites
Comments
-
Now we know the sites involved I suppose I am not surprised. As JVB has explained there are particular reasons why Morn Hill is cheaper as its been staved of investment for reasons outside the control of the Club. One toilet block is in desperate need of investment and, if I recall correctly, there are no hardstandings. On the otherhand Rookesbury Park is up to normal Club standards which I imagine justifies the price difference unlike the example I noted earlier in the thread.
David
0 -
I'm sure, in fact I know, that David is quite capable of speaking for himself. But there is surely a difference between his style of "touring" and many others?
If I were looking for a site to stop on for 6 weeks at a time I certainly wouldn't choose a club site, partly on cost, but mainly due to the fact that they are not designed as long stay sites like that.
But as I posted earlier, by mixing sites it is still eminently possible to use "expensive" club sites when and where we want to and keep our average cost down to around £20 a night.
Comparing individual UK Sites and European ones is pointless; club site prices are around the median for this country - that may well be above the median for European sites.
4 -
I forgot how funny HE was👍🏻😂😂😂
0 -
One half of the site is, as I understand it owned by the Club and the larger upper part owned by the local authority. The local authority have for years been unwilling to either sell or rent it on a longer lease that would allow the Club to make a worthwhile investment in upgrading the site facilities.
0 -
yes, DK, get a grip
0 -
Geez JV, DK silly?😱🤔
0 -
Except of course the part that needs investment is owned by the local council and as any changes would likely need some sort of planning permission I can't see the LA being that keen? However I expect the Club are not willing to spend money when there is a risk that they won't get a return on their investment?
0
"