Site Pricing
Comments
-
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
WG, you don't want to answer the question, no problem. May I respectfully request that you don't make such sweeping statements in the future-they do come back & bite.
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
...For the service that mayday usually provide the cost for peace of mind is imho not substantial
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
You agreed with my words "lower margin of surplus over costs" which is what we've been talking about.
Regardless of that, can you not see that all sites are meeting a need for pitches? The Club, which I again say does not have shareholders and dividends to find, meets a need and supplies a service to members. If said members are not happy, they are not obliged
to remain members.Interestingly, you seem to have overlooked the fact that pitch fees are discounted to members.
0 -
In terms of pricing it really does pay dividends to check out the Club's special offer prices, as there are often some very surprising bargains to sample. For example two adults and up to four children for £14 a night at 13 of the Club's sites, even cheaper
offers for couples on certain sites. Away from the popular sites, York, Chatsworth, Seaside honeypots, there are some great and relatively cheap offers. Not everyone's cup of tea admittedly, but then if you want/need more, then it has to come at a price.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
You agreed with my words "lower margin of surplus over costs" which is what we've been talking about.
Regardless of that, can you not see that all sites are meeting a need for pitches? The Club, which I again say does not have shareholders and dividends to find, meets a need and supplies a service to members. If said members are not happy, they are not obliged
to remain members.Interestingly, you seem to have overlooked the fact that pitch fees are discounted to members.
I would argue that pitch fees are not discounted for members but are rather increased for non members. There is a difference!
0 -
Rocky2, to answer your question - No i believe the CC is a commercial organisation
Let me ask you a question "If you pay £5 tojoin Go Outdoors in order to be able to buy items, would you then consider yourself to be a member or is it just a way to get another £5 out of your pocket
JVB I have no problems in paying Mayday the cost for 'peace of mind' but it still doesn't make me a member
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
You agreed with my words "lower margin of surplus over costs" which is what we've been talking about.
Regardless of that, can you not see that all sites are meeting a need for pitches? The Club, which I again say does not have shareholders and dividends to find, meets a need and supplies a service to members. If said members are not happy, they are not obliged
to remain members.Interestingly, you seem to have overlooked the fact that pitch fees are discounted to members.
...I agree with you,and some keep making a point of posting that its CC LTD as if its different to any other responsible club that has registered to cover the members against claims against the club, over its assets that otherwise the members would have
to fund0 -
You agreed with my words "lower margin of surplus over costs" which is what we've been talking about.
Regardless of that, can you not see that all sites are meeting a need for pitches? The Club, which I again say does not have shareholders and dividends to find, meets a need and supplies a service to members. If said members are not happy, they are not obliged
to remain members.Interestingly, you seem to have overlooked the fact that pitch fees are discounted to members.
I would argue that pitch fees are not discounted for members but are rather increased for non members. There is a difference!
Mbee, the end result is the same. If you're a member you pay less than a non-member so, really, there is no difference.
0 -
Rocky2, to answer your question - No i believe the CC is a commercial organisation
Let me ask you a question "If you pay £5 tojoin Go Outdoors in order to be able to buy items, would you then consider yourself to be a member or is it just a way to get another £5 out of your pocket
JVB I have no problems in paying Mayday the cost for 'peace of mind' but it still doesn't make me a member
I am a member of GO, I've saved £280 over Crimbo WG, excellent these clubs
0 -
Rocky2, to answer your question - No i believe the CC is a commercial organisation
Let me ask you a question "If you pay £5 tojoin Go Outdoors in order to be able to buy items, would you then consider yourself to be a member or is it just a way to get another £5 out of your pocket
JVB I have no problems in paying Mayday the cost for 'peace of mind' but it still doesn't make me a member
..It was your "substantial amount"?? l.was refering to,and of course tha cc is comercial organisation ,but it also has a membership and commitees to keep it under some control
0 -
Interestingly, you seem to have overlooked the fact that pitch fees are discounted to members.
TW, I would love to know how many non members take up the option to pay the extra £10 a night or whatever it is
If you want a job in retirement I 'm sure someone would give you a job as a spin doctor
I'm glad you have returned to the forum, it has been the poorer with out your input
0 -
Interestingly, you seem to have overlooked the fact that pitch fees are discounted to members.
TW, I would love to know how many non members take up the option to pay the extra £10 a night or whatever it is
If you want a job in retirement I 'm sure someone would give you a job as a spin doctor
I'm glad you have returned to the forum, it has been the poorer with out your input
...I think its £12? this year and quite a few i understand, pay it
0 -
Interestingly, you seem to have overlooked the fact that pitch fees are discounted to members.
TW, I would love to know how many non members take up the option to pay the extra £10 a night or whatever it is
If you want a job in retirement I 'm sure someone would give you a job as a spin doctor
I'm glad you have returned to the forum, it has been the poorer with out your input
Why, thankyou, WG! You were away yourself for a while as well.
Despite your kind words, I'm really not looking for another job.
0 -
..It was your "substantial amount"?? l.was refering to
I think we pay around £126 - I am not complaining but if you think it is "unsubstantial" ( is there such a word!!) then please send me your cheque asap
0 -
JVB, can you please tell me how paying £48 allows me to "keep it under control"
0 -
..It was your "substantial amount"?? l.was refering to
I think we pay around £126 - I am not complaining but if you think it is "unsubstantial" ( is there such a word!!) then please send me your cheque asap
"unsubstantial" , yes it is a word, WG, happy to clarify
0 -
...I think its £12? this year and quite a few i understand, pay it
That big blue box to the RHS of the page says £10
0 -
...I think its £12? this year and quite a few i understand, pay it
That big blue box to the RHS of the page says £10
surely, two non-members paying £24
more per night for a pitch would break even on membership for just two nights on site....wouldnt
the warden would explain this and they would, undoubtedly, become members....it wouldnt make sense not to join, if there was the slimmest chance of spending more than two nights on any club sites...
...There is as they say Nowt so queer as folk
0 -
...I think its £12? this year and quite a few i understand, pay it
That big blue box to the RHS of the page says £10
surely, two non-members paying £24
more per night for a pitch would break even on membership for just two nights on site....wouldnt
the warden would explain this and they would, undoubtedly, become members....it wouldnt make sense not to join, if there was the slimmest chance of spending more than two nights on any club sites...
Is the non-member fee not per pitch rather than per person?
0 -
Back to the point of site fees, maybe just have a pitch fee and base it on number of berths your outfit has.
So you think that a single person in a 6 berth caravan should pay the same as a couple with 4 children? (Shake of head!)
0 -
Back to the point of site fees, maybe just have a pitch fee and base it on number of berths your outfit has.
So you think that a single person in a 6 berth caravan should pay the same as a couple with 4 children? (Shake of head!)
The majority of caravans with fixed beds are nominally four berths but are not realy designed for this. Using the number of berths would not work for those of us using these and parents with a six berth going off on their own would never approach aclub site.
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
Yes the banks did that, even the one that we as tax payers own. So now you have people having to make ridiculously long round trips if they cannot use on line services. Surely that is the whole point of the CC in that it provides a service in areas that otherwise may not have one. If that means that more profitable sites subsidise those that are less profitable, or make a loss I see nothing wrong in that.
0 -
As it costs the same to run a fridge,heat and light a six berth no matter how many stay in it then why not nellie.
Wildwood I know parents with a five berth that don't go near a club site because they are priced out of it because they would have to pay two adults and three children so always go on cls,therefore the club makes nothing more from them.
No system is perfect and I'm not saying what I have suggested is fairer but I do think the system could be fairer, after all it was only a few weeks ago there was a discussion on how to get more young people involved in the club, well hello young people
usually means family's. We go away with my father in law, I would suggest that he uses no less electric in his van than us as he has the heating on a lot more due to his age and as he prefers to stay with his van most days while were out has the tv on more
yet he pays less than half of what we pay. What do we get for the extra, two showers and if you consider he's there more he probably uses the toilet more than us. If you went into a hotel you would have to pay a single supplement so why would paying for a
two berth be any different.0 -
Furball, take a look at the Clubs special offers, and pass on to families. Sites for £14 per night all in, up to four children and two adults. Compares with CLs. Doesn't matter how many berths!
0
