Smaller Site Closures
Comments
-
@SteveL Yes I've just noticed that too
0 -
Nor does it flag up 'New' in red.
I wasn’t aware of any posts being placed since mine if 2 days ago.
0 -
@peedee I do wish you would not selective in your quotations of my posts. What I posted was :
"Also I cannot understand how it can make a loss of £5m as you state yet make a surplus (which you did not state) of £4m+ from membership fees and other sources? Doesn't the CCC have these too?"
I cannot understand why you choose to miss out a the rest of that sentence from the parts in bold onwards and thereby change the whole context? Why? What do you hope to achieve?
And really there is nothing I choose not to understand, while it could be said there is much you choose not to disclose, like the surplus of £4m.
1 -
Can you show where from the financial statement there was a loss of £5m from operating sites?same place you got your surplus of £4M from
Not really PD, the £4m surplus is very clearly given on page 15, yet I cannot find any reference to the loss of £5m you talk about, now this may be due to my lack of ability of reading these statements hence my polite question to you.
1 -
"Also I cannot understand how it can make a loss of £5m as you state yet make a surplus (which you did not state) of £4m+ from membership fees and other sources? Doesn't the CCC have these too?"
@Cornersteady for your benefit I'll repeat what I posted for @Takethedogalong:
Both Clubs didn't do particularly well in 2024, both lost money operating sites, the C&mC nearly £5M. However unlike the C&CC, the C&mC made an overall profit due to income from other sources e.g. membership fees
I suppose you will now say I was not clear enough because I did not say by how much the C&mC profit was!
peedee
0 -
@peedee repeating something doesn't make it automatically true or indeed clearer.
However you have not answered my question (twice now) about where you have got this loss of £5m from operating club sites? The surplus I have quoted is on page 15 on the financial statement 2024 but I can't see any reference to a loss of £5m from sites, as I said that's probably due to my inability to read these things, so could you point out where you got this loss of £5m?
In any case going from a supposed loss of £5m loss in operating sites to a £4m+ surplus overall, which looks like making £9m from somewhere, is pretty good going isn't it? You mention membership fees but the CCC has that too?
0 -
@peedee It appears to have been fixed now. But it is nothing to do with anything being controversial, (there are far more 'controversial' threads than this that stay current) it's usually happens when a thread is moved from one section to another - this was moved from the story section by a moderator, if it's reported then it gets fixed.
0 -
It does seem to me that the non member premium is there to discourage rather than encourage.I think Peedee is suggesting that if the premium was much lower, or non existant it might help keep more sites open. It seems to me that some of the sites have pleanty of availbility so perhaps encourging non member stays, by a lower premium might be to the advantage of both members and non members? I appreciate that some members might not agree with non members getting similar prices but what is worse, sites closing because they are not being used. Perhaps there could be some seasonal leeway on fees so the peak season is protected for members?
David
1 -
The thing is that if that were to be implemented then what is the point of being a member and it possibly lead to a decrease in membership income.
Also if as PD possibly suggests the membership fee actually made up the loss of £5m from sites loss and then made another £4m on top to give a surplus of £4m then wouldn't that affect that ability to keep afloat?
A surplus of £4m and buying Lickpenny btw.
What is worse closing sites that are not being used, or rather viable, or not having a surplus, not buying new sites, and possibly leading to losing the club?
Actually there must be a reason some sites are not being used (grass, lack of 'good' facilities…whatever) and why should they stay open if they are not being used by members? They are just losing more money? Members by using certain sites and/or not using certain sites show what they want, if certain sites are not viable close them?
There certainly has to be some give and take with the more popular sites subsidizing the less popular but there is a limit.
0 -
Not your inability to read reports, I hope, but you looked in the wrong place. C&mC produce an analysis of income and expenditure in the October magazine, page 123. It shows an income of £19.5M in membership fees and £10 on financial services, both more than enough to cover site operational losses of £4.9M.
The C&CC's income streams are not so productive as those of the C&mC. It has lower membership numbers and fees and also does not offer the same financial services. Its turnover is considerably less than that of the C&mC
peedee
0 -
Exactly David, what I had in mind by suggesting this was that it applied to underused non facility sites not necessarily to those with full facilities.
I stayed at the Marizion Cavaran site this year which was previously owned by the C&mC and under new management it is thriving and it is now open all year. Admittingly it has been equiped with showers and toilets using porta cabins which has increased its appeal but it also very reasonably priced and shows they are not all a lost cause.
peedee
3 -
@peedee Ah thank you but I did ask you
"Can you show where from the financial statement there was a loss of £5m from operating sites?"
to which you replied
same place you got your surplus of £4M from
Meaning the financial statement, but you've now made it clear. Well all I can say is that lucky for us (club members) that the club is so much better at making money, or perhaps, at thinking outside the box? Still all is well.
0 -
@peedee I think you are proving my point exactly,
@peedee I think that last paragraph proves my point and disproves yours. In my view it is not the waiver of membership fees that has made Marizion thriving but the addition of a showers and toilets to, as you put it, increased its appeal, an appeal it didn't have before due to their lack I would think.
Again if we remove memberships fee for some sites it takes aways the advantages in offsetting sites losses as in my post above.
0 -
If occupancy was the concern, it would cost the C&mC absolutely nothing to try waiving the non member fee rather than close a site and it could be a win for the members. I cannot see why this would bother too many members if they do not use such sites?
Agree adding facilities at the Marizion site has made the site more appealing for those without facilities in their outfits, specifically tents of which there were quite a few when I stayed for a week in the summer.
peedee
0 -
If occupancy was the concern, it would cost the C&mC absolutely nothing to try waiving the non member fee rather than close a site and it could be a win for the members. I cannot see why this would bother too many members if they do not use such sites?
@peedee I suspect that members who do use the sites would be bothered if non members were given the same rights as members. Whilst I think it a good idea in principle, those booking should be treated as many private sites would. £25 deposit and the residual a week before. After all one of the major benefits of membership is the generous T&C’s of the CAMC.
1 -
I have never been quite sure what the rational is for the non-member premium. One would imagine that at the rate it is set it is there to discourage non-members? Is it to prove to members the good value that the membership provides? That might be the case if members felt that member prices were good value in the first place but from what you read in comments on here and in other social media that is not always the case. There is no reason why some sites shouldn't offer a much lower non-member premium on those sites at riak. Keep it higher on member honey pot sites by all means so as not to take away member advantage. I think we all realise that the hobby of camping is changing and the Club have to be prepared to change as well. In some ways they already are and the introdution of Experience Freedom is perhaps a good example.
David
2 -
I’m very surprised to learn the current operators are keeping the Marazion site open all year. It’s an all grass site and quite quickly becomes a mud bath in wet weather. At best, they’ll need to close some pitches at times.
0 -
I do not think they intend on keeping the field open but in the area by reception it is quite firm and rocky. The site owner (Graham or Gareth?) who has a long lease now lives on site and he told me he hoped to put in some hardstanding.
If you haven't seen my pics there are some >here<
peedee
0 -
That first pitch by the no entry sign (2nd pic, 1st batch) becomes a quagmire and gets ploughed up. The hard area around reception is the arrival area/thoroughfare/car park.
Interesting set up with the new facilities block.
0 -
The area with the brollies is where I have pitched before in wet conditions
. When I visited it was a communal area with a little bar next to reception (not open every day). I was in the field with plenty of room.
Some interesting food vans visit. The greek one was very good.
peedee
1 -
Good photos PeeDee. That site is quite different under private ownership.
Seats, parasols, tents mixed with caravans, a facilities block, a communal area with a little bar, non members and overseas visitors attracted because they are no longer charged an exorbitant premium, fridges and freezer for tent campers who don’t have them, and a Greek food van instead of only inevitable fish and chip vans elsewhere. There is a future after all.0 -
and a Greek food van instead of only inevitable fish and chip vans elsewhere
@eurortraveller You clearly have not used many club sites.
1 -
@DavidKlyne I think it is pretty obvious really, it is to encourage people to join, and as always what is posted on here and other social media doesn't aromatically reflect reality. No one is forced to join and rejoin yet it happens and a very high rate year in and year out. You were, are, a case in point.
There are plenty of reasons not to offer a non member premium to ast risk sites. Firstly, what is a 'at risk' site? Who decides? Why would people join if one or more sites does not require it? Why is it 'at risk' - well because few(er) members, the ones who actually join do not want to use them, so why should it be kept on the books? Why should I subsidize a people to use a site without being a member? Would I expect that from any club? Also if income from memberships if affected then the ability to offset losses from elsewhere will also be affceted?
As @SteveL says binging a member brings with it benefits on booking T&C, why should a non member have these benefits, book a site and all they lose is £5?
Perhaps only take passing trade bookings as suggested.
0
