All booked up near us !
Comments
-
I think it quite useful for the the two Clubs to have a different MO with regards to booking. There are very few circumstances where I would personally book a year ahead on any campsite but clearly some like to have something to aim for or dream of. Because I tend only to book a month or two ahead, if that, I generally find it easy to book a C&CC site and I think only once have I failed to book the site I want. Because I am happy to book a few days of a proposed stay on a CMC site and hang around for more days to become available which invariably they do because of the flexible booking system I can work with both systems. The potential spanner in the works would be if the CMC decided to go down the deposit route which can't be ruled out?
David
0 -
I'm not sure if you're addressing me or AD there, PD, but to use a word favoured by some, those bookings will prove to be speculative if cancelled but every booking can be considered speculative no matter how serious the intent at the time of booking. That’s not the same as dishonesty, or even immorality, though, it's merely being prudent.
2 -
Well you can wait until two weeks before going away if you want. However, ourselves and many others chose to plan a little further in advance. As I said for us the lack of facilities isn’t a showstopper However, for some it is and quite rightly they have cancelled.
0 -
Some where on this forum I am sure you said you had your favourite pitch reserved on your favourite site overthere and that they kept contacting you to ask when you would be visiting ?, however moving on...
I think many are overlooking the "regular" CAMHC site user, those who year after year use club sites, have only 4 weeks hols per year and who normally book early in the year for that particular years holiday, but, saw what was coming back end of 2020 when the word "staycation" entered our vocabularly and thought, best get booking for next year as sites/pitches are going to be at a premium, so they booked and they booked irrespective of whether they would actually use any particular booking, and good for them, because we can see now that many who holiday overthere have been hanging on in the hope that overthere would still be possible, but now when that is looking more and more unlikely are flocking to the club sites in desperation/last hope of getting away, and moaning and groaning because they cant find a site/pitch that suites, sorry chaps, first come first served and if they cancel later without incurring a fee, good luck to them. Bet the club are watching how this unfolds very carefully, looks like some potential to gain some extra revenue
1 -
so you're saying that because the CCC is more 'profitable' it is doing things better?
Also does more profitable then equate to more people or fills more pitches as TW was alluding to?
They could make more money from campers in tents?
I couldn't care less which club or campsite is making more money as long as the club I'm using is continues to provide good quality sites
0 -
Profitability is down to the working and charging regimes in place and doesn't give much idea on % occupancy. Efficiency usually equates to profitability but need have no relation to occupancy.
Edit: Great minds again, Corners, to the minute.😄2 -
What ever the reason they have been growing over the last 5 years where as the C&MC have just stood still. If you could buy shares in either Club guess where my money would go.
I have just looked and at the end of 2019 the C&CC was twice as profitable as the C&MC and was considerably more profitable in the previous 4 years. They must be doing something better than the C&MC. yet the services they offer are the same
peedee
0 -
What must be me?🤔
I think you’ve missed the point that it was PD who called cancelling bookings dishonest whilst I was refuting the idea.
0 -
As TW said more profits does not equal more pitches, perhaps the CCC doesn't pay its staff as much? Or the CAMC has more staff. I certainly know that the CAMC has bought new sites and spent a lot of refurbishing those and others. All that expenditure might affect profits?
Again could you post some figures to prove the growth numbers?
But either why you want to turn the profit/membership between the two into some form of competition as to who is better and would I buy shares in is beyond me. Just use and enjoy them.
0 -
For both Clubs the majority of income comes from site revenue so it would seem to be logical that is where the majority profits come from i.e site occupancy and how the mainsty of both Clubs is run. .
Figure are easy enough to check from Companies House. where all compaies lodge accounts.
peedee
0 -
But that still does not give you the BIS figure!
0 -
Income may be high from sites(do not know where your info comes from?) but the sites network on both major clubs sites ,was at my last information, ,subsidised by the far more lucrative overseas travel and insurance services,
PS another reason that it could well be a problem if site fees were reduced as some expect with no overses travel at this time
0 -
What absolute rubbish. Where an earth did you get that from??? From what I recollect from the fancy graphs the Club once pruduced in the magazine when reporting financials, income from sites was close to 50 percent of income. Travel income was less tha 20 percent. Give me 10 minutes and I will be more accurate.
peedee
0 -
Not logical at all PD.
Perhaps I'm naïve in this but I would assume that a very simply model would be that profit = income minus outgoings.
So the income could be the same but if the CAMC is spending more than the CCC (on buying new sites for a few million each, rolling refurbishments, higher staff costs, re-payments...) then the profits will be lower. A bit like two people having the same salary but one having less outgoings. That is logical.
Or maybe having all the money in the their bank from all those deposits boosts profits too. If so I'll gladly have the club's model where I keep the money in my bank.
Anyway as I've said (and you haven't answered) what are you trying to show or prove with one club having larger profits/memberships? Are you saying the clubs should follow the CCC?
Why is that so important to you that the CCC is 'doing better'? Does it matter?
0 -
The actual figures are:
48.7 percent of income is from sites
14..3 percent from travel services. almost equal to subs at 13.6 percent.
peedee
0 -
No need to be rude PD. Just disprove that without it?
Again why the need to prove one club is doing better than the other? Just enjoy them.
PS it's been 13
0 -
Its called "supply and demand" there are parts of overthere were i would probably not tour during late June/July/August without pre booking and even in Spain we visited a site on the 18th Dec arrived lunch time to be told they only had 5 pitches free, by 1600 hrs they were turning people away.
Much the same in the UK, if you tour during late June/July/August, demand outstrips supply, maybe not so April/May/early June, so no point banging on about it, if you cannot accept it, leave your wheel off and park up until maybe next year when hopefully those of us that want can tour over there and over here.
3 -
Bums in seats. That is, you still have not told us the % occupancy rates of pitches.
0 -
Tell that the the Head Honcho from the finance department of this club who was the author of these facts, that were given to site staff at one of the conferences that some of our friends were attending as part of their yearly updates on the"way forward" which came quite a supprise to those who attended i understand
And if you had read my post where did i say sites gave the highest ,when you count up the pie gtagh i think what i said is more than sites income especially if you consider membership income
0 -
When I owned a place in the sun, I would book flights almost a year ahead and, whilst it was nice to have something to look forward to, it meant that my life was mapped out and entailed planning other stuff around the flight dates. Since becoming an LV owner, and more so since I switched to a Motorhome, I've enjoyed the spontaneity of deciding a few days ahead. Whilst I prefer CL's on economic and informality grounds I realise that I am going to have to take pot luck this year with "wild camping" probably featuring on occasions when I am pitchless.
0 -
Capital expenditure comes from reserves or loans and is not used to judge a Company’s profitability until it is employed in trying to earn revenue. Therefore, capital expenditure on new sites doesn't enter into profitability. Both Clubs are busy upgrading existing sites or rather were until COVID arrived. My guess is, if you looked into it, they proportional spend similar amounts on upgrades.
My reasoning is…. because the larger part of revenue is from site income for both Clubs and the C&CC is the more profitable there must be a difference in the way the sites are run and operated or is it just that the C&CC’s overall occupancy and hence income from sites is better than that of the C&MC? I certainly don't believe they pay their site managers any more or less than the C&MCs' wardens and it is difficult to believe the C&CCs' other site operating cost are very different to that of the C&MC. The C&CC pitch costs are, on the whole, also cheaper than the C&MCs which also leads me to believe that in spite of the most obvious difference being the deposits charged by the C&CC, this certainly does not effect their occupancy and its better than the C&MCs otherwise they would not be the more profitable.
I conclude that in spite of the flexible booking system the C&MC has, and the fact that their sites are more often than not shown as fully booked because of it, it cannot be putting so many bums on seats as poster on here might think otherwise the profitability would be closer to that of the C&CC. This was not for just for 2019 but its been like that for the previous 4 years .In short deposits seem to work.
Both Clubs operate in the same environment and offer near identical services so why do you think the C&CC is more profitable if it is not down to deposits and better site occupancy?
peedee
0
