Site Pricing
Comments
-
WG - The club runs many sites in fairly remote locations don't they, and the major costs, I assume (possibly incorrectly!) are labour and land (nothing to do with "suppliers"). It may be that sites in popular areas subsidise these. Surely nobody is suggesting that those sites should be shut to make the network more profitable and reduce costs?
0 -
Moulesy, I do not suppose these 'one man band' independent operators have a particularly wide consumer base but they obviously make a profit: why is it then that the Club with a very wide membership can not use this 'captive audience: to fill their sites and at the same time make a substantial profit. The sites seem to be run on a shoestring so if some sites cannot make a profit even if they try every option of attracting new customers - this is where i believe the CC do fail, too rigid - then Yes I would close down the loss makers.
However I would first look at cutting costs at H.O because there are always measures that can be taken to achieve efficiency,not always by cutting down numbers at the shop floor but at higher levels of management.
0 -
Moulesy, I do not suppose these 'one man band' independent operators have a particularly wide consumer base but they obviously make a profit: why is it then that the Club with a very wide membership can not use this 'captive audience: to fill their sites and at the same time make a substantial profit. The sites seem to be run on a shoestring so if some sites cannot make a profit even if they try every option of attracting new customers - this is where i believe the CC do fail, too rigid - then Yes I would close down the loss makers.
However I would first look at cutting costs at H.O because there are always measures that can be taken to achieve efficiency,not always by cutting down numbers at the shop floor but at higher levels of management.
WG, the Club does not have shareholders taking a slice of the profits. Why would you want CC to make 'substantial' profits at a cost to us all? Surely to meet costs with a surplus as a guard against inflation and with an eye to the future is what is needed?
Closing sites is hardly within the ethos of the Club which aims to provide touring sites for its members to use and not to reduce site/pitch numbers based solely on the mighty Pound.
0 -
Moulesy, I do not suppose these 'one man band' independent operators have a particularly wide consumer base but they obviously make a profit: why is it then that the Club with a very wide membership can not use this 'captive audience: to fill their sites
and at the same time make a substantial profit. The sites seem to be run on a shoestring so if some sites cannot make a profit even if they try every option of attracting new customers - this is where i believe the CC do fail, too rigid - then Yes I would
close down the loss makers.However I would first look at cutting costs at H.O because there are always measures that can be taken to achieve efficiency,not always by cutting down numbers at the shop floor but at higher levels of management.
...The club do make a "profit" but most is re invested in the sites network,Its I think its a rolling 10yr? cycle through out the whole network plus new sites as areas /sites become available,
Our friends told us that the "buffer" in the club funds would soon be used up if any other organisation started a "price war"
0 -
I’m not sure that non-profit making sites should be kept open, unless there is a reason to suggest that things will change very soon. At the other extreme, if a site could charge more for its pitches (the honeypots) I think they should.
There is an over demand and under supply of pitches. The Club must make a healthy profit from which to create more for us.
0 -
TW If profits are to be 'reinvested then they have to make one in the first place. I never suggested that the profit should be removed from the company'
Surely a Club that has seasonal pitches and fails to make provision for those that may turn up 'on spec' has slightly lost its way as a 'touring club'
Rogher, I totally agree with your post
0 -
I’m not sure that non-profit making sites should be kept open, unless there is a reason to suggest that things will change very soon. At the other extreme, if a site could charge more for its pitches (the honeypots) I think they should.
There is an over demand and under supply of pitches. The Club must make a healthy profit from which to create more for us.
...It must be the same with most tourist oganisations, hotels included, that they have places in areas that do not show a profit but "honeypot" areas keep them going,because there is a need, albeit small as with the clubs
0 -
Most companies eventually cut out the 'deadwood' otherwise they run the risk of the whole company being dragged down
0 -
I’m not sure that non-profit making sites should be kept open, unless there is a reason to suggest that things will change very soon. At the other extreme, if a site could charge more for its pitches (the honeypots) I think they should.
There is an over demand and under supply of pitches. The Club must make a healthy profit from which to create more for us.
...It must be the same with most tourist oganisations, hotels included, that they have places in areas that do not show a profit but "honeypot" areas keep them going,because there is a need, albeit small as with the clubs
Sure, the contribution from sites will vary but even the ‘weak’ ones should pay their way. Otherwise they’re just a burden on the rest.
0 -
TW If profits are to be 'reinvested then they have to make one in the first place. I never suggested that the profit should be removed from the company'
Surely a Club that has seasonal pitches and fails to make provision for those that may turn up 'on spec' has slightly lost its way as a 'touring club'
Rogher, I totally agree with your post
Until there are fewer tourers or a lot more pitches of any description in this country, the days of ‘free-style’ touring have long since gone.
0 -
I’m not sure that non-profit making sites should be kept open, unless there is a reason to suggest that things will change very soon. At the other extreme, if a site could charge more for its pitches (the honeypots) I think they should.
There is an over demand and under supply of pitches. The Club must make a healthy profit from which to create more for us.
...It must be the same with most tourist oganisations, hotels included, that they have places in areas that do not show a profit but "honeypot" areas keep them going,because there is a need, albeit small as with the clubs
Sure, the contribution from sites will vary but even the ‘weak’ ones should pay their way. Otherwise they’re just a burden on the rest.
...Thats why its a club you try to cater for the majority of the membership, in what ever area some might like to go ,profit at any cost should not come into it
0 -
It's not a 'Club' now, it may have been 25 years ago
0 -
TW If profits are to be 'reinvested then they have to make one in the first place. I never suggested that the profit should be removed from the company'
Surely a Club that has seasonal pitches and fails to make provision for those that may turn up 'on spec' has slightly lost its way as a 'touring club'
Rogher, I totally agree with your post
"Substantial profit" is just that, WG, money in pockets. A surplus for reinvestment is not profit but funds for capital investment.
Seasonal pitches are generally on sites that have scope for them and it benefits the Club, and all of us, financially.
If you believe there are insufficient pitches for those turning up 'on spec', the situation will not be helped by closing the sites that have a lower margin of surplus over costs. Think about it. Closing sites = less pitches.
0 -
Surely it is better to find other sites/areas that can pay their way
P.S I have no problem with 'a lower margin of surplus over costs', that still sounds like a profit to me!
0 -
It's not a 'Club' now, it may have been 25 years ago
WG, it says the 'Caravan Club' at the top of this page-should they be sued for false advertising do you think?
0 -
Well the final nail in the coffin of any concept of a club would be the closure of less popular sites and the pricing out of less well off members from "honeypot" sites.
Very sad, in my opinion!
There's always CLs - much nicer anyway
0 -
It's not a 'Club' now, it may have been 25 years ago
WG, it says the 'Caravan Club' at the top of this page-should they be sued for false advertising do you think?
What do you think?
0 -
However I would first look at cutting costs at H.O because there are always measures that can be taken to achieve efficiency,not always by cutting down numbers at the shop floor but at higher levels of management.
In any substantially large organisation there is generally a decreasing number of indians supporting an increasing number of chiefs. Don't hold your breath.0 -
It's not a 'Club' now, it may have been 25 years ago
WG, it says the 'Caravan Club' at the top of this page-should they be sued for false advertising do you think?
What do you think?
That isn't answering my question, if you'd rather not-I respect that. You did make an odd statement I'll give you that
0 -
Surely it is better to find other sites/areas that can pay their way
P.S I have no problem with 'a lower margin of surplus over costs', that still sounds like a profit to me!
But these are the very sites you wanted to close! Now you're saying the lower margin of surplus over costs is still a profit.
If there is sufficient surplus, or 'profit' in your terms, why close the sites as they must be paying their way.
0 -
It's not a 'Club' now, it may have been 25 years ago
Write your comments here...
It's not a 'Club' now, it may have been 25 years ago
...Are there many large clubs these days? remember the AA&RAC? look what happened there ,a lesson that was learnt,at least there is still a membership which stops the circling sharks from a buy out bid at the moment for either club
0 -
It's not a 'Club' now, it may have been 25 years ago
WG, it says the 'Caravan Club' at the top of this page-should they be sued for false advertising do you think?
What do you think?
That isn't answering my question, if you'd rather not-I respect that. You did make an odd statement I'll give you that
The small Clubs I am a member of give you some 'perks' for being a member such as cheaper cups of tea/ listen to your views etc . The CC don't even give me the cheapest caravan insurance, for that I have to go to another of my Clubs , the friendly one
0 -
It's not a 'Club' now, it may have been 25 years ago
Write your comments here...
It's not a 'Club' now, it may have been 25 years ago
...Are there many large clubs these days? remember the AA&RAC? look what happened there ,a lesson that was learnt,at least there is still a membership which stops the circling sharks from a buy out bid at the moment for either club
Good point, do these people consider themselves to be members? - I don't consider myself to be a "Mayday " member just someone who has forked out a substantial sum of money
0 -
It's not a 'Club' now, it may have been 25 years ago
WG, it says the 'Caravan Club' at the top of this page-should they be sued for false advertising do you think?
What do you think?
That isn't answering my question, if you'd rather not-I respect that. You did make an odd statement I'll give you that
The small Clubs I am a member of give you some 'perks' for being a member such as cheaper cups of tea/ listen to your views etc . The CC don't even give me the cheapest caravan insurance, for that I have to go to another of my Clubs , the friendly one
But the CC do provide the CL network you (so rightly) praised just now!
0 -
TW If profits are to be 'reinvested then they have to make one in the first place. I never suggested that the profit should be removed from the company'
Surely a Club that has seasonal pitches and fails to make provision for those that may turn up 'on spec' has slightly lost its way as a 'touring club'
Rogher, I totally agree with your post
"Substantial profit" is just that, WG, money in pockets. A surplus for reinvestment is not profit but funds for capital investment.
Seasonal pitches are generally on sites that have scope for them and it benefits the Club, and all of us, financially.
If you believe there are insufficient pitches for those turning up 'on spec', the situation will not be helped by closing the sites that have a lower margin of surplus over costs. Think about it. Closing sites = less pitches.
..So true, short term gain for long turm loss,the annual figures for site occupancy will tell the number crunchers at Grimstead if there is real problem in any area,and in the past sites have closed ,not always because of end of lease
0 -
Surely it is better to find other sites/areas that can pay their way
P.S I have no problem with 'a lower margin of surplus over costs', that still sounds like a profit to me!
But these are the very sites you wanted to close! Now you're saying the lower margin of surplus over costs is still a profit.
If there is sufficient surplus, or 'profit' in your terms, why close the sites as they must be paying their way.
I was suggesting closing sites that cost more to run than they bring in,- i.e they did not have a surplus
0 -
It's not a 'Club' now, it may have been 25 years ago
WG, it says the 'Caravan Club' at the top of this page-should they be sued for false advertising do you think?
What do you think?
That isn't answering my question, if you'd rather not-I respect that. You did make an odd statement I'll give you that
The small Clubs I am a member of give you some 'perks' for being a member such as cheaper cups of tea/ listen to your views etc . The CC don't even give me the cheapest caravan insurance, for that I have to go to another of my Clubs , the friendly one
Write your comments here...Have
It's not a 'Club' now, it may have been 25 years ago
WG, it says the 'Caravan Club' at the top of this page-should they be sued for false advertising do you think?
What do you think?
That isn't answering my question, if you'd rather not-I respect that. You did make an odd statement I'll give you that
The small Clubs I am a member of give you some 'perks' for being a member such as cheaper cups of tea/ listen to your views etc . The CC don't even give me the cheapest caravan insurance, for that I have to go to another of my Clubs , the friendly one
...I looked at the ccc insurance but after reading the "small print" stayed with cc
0 -
Surely it is better to find other sites/areas that can pay their way
P.S I have no problem with 'a lower margin of surplus over costs', that still sounds like a profit to me!
But these are the very sites you wanted to close! Now you're saying the lower margin of surplus over costs is still a profit.
If there is sufficient surplus, or 'profit' in your terms, why close the sites as they must be paying their way.
I was suggesting closing sites that cost more to run than they bring in,- i.e they did not have a surplus
I think we've had enough cuts and austerity in the country as it is, without extending the concept to the CC!
0
