2017 Site fees
Comments
-
Forgive the long quotes....editing on this old i pad is not easy.
If nobody complains, how will the Club ever know how members feel?
They won't K. However when I have looke at some comercial sites in the areas that I want during the months that I want them those commercial sites have not been far removed fromm CC sites. However for the mobths when I don;t want them (and when presumably few others do) the commercial sites are less than CC sites. Maybe some of the CC sites shut down fr the winter because they are not competative at tha tpart of the year?
0 -
corners, ypu posted this in response to Ian's view of SB...
"in your opinion of course? Its not a fact they are as good, or have you read seem any sort of report? Again if you have rather than quote it as fact I
would be very interested to see it. You shouln't really pontificate like this you know Ian!"i supported Ian in his post from my own real experience of the place....so, real evidence
your response was in fact, 'conjecture' IMHO
0 -
There does seem to be qiuite a significant cohort of wealthy CC members, you see them on SwiftTalk and Caravanchat, who drive Range Rovers and change their van every 2 or 3 years.
They must be amongst the members who do not care about the increase in site fees!
That's quite a wild assumption, Kjell. you haven't mentioned members prepared to fork out mega bucks for a brand new MH. Why should one example mean people don't care about the increase in site fees if the other example means the opposite?
Caravanchat? I think you named the wrong forum.
Probably.....long time since I frequented it! Caravansomething......
Maybe Caravantalk?
Don't let the facts get in the way, Kjell. The same goes for the rest of your earlier post. Pure supposition.
0 -
corners, ypu posted this in response to Ian's view of SB...
"in your opinion of course? Its not a fact they are as good, or have you read seem any sort of report? Again if you have rather than quote it as fact I
would be very interested to see it. You shouln't really pontificate like this you know Ian!"i supported Ian in his post from my own real experience of the place....so, real evidence
your response was in fact, 'conjecture' IMHO
BB I really cannot see where you are coming from, even the bit in bold? re resd it carefully. I never conjectured anything. I was asking Ian for some report, some facts?
0 -
A little less antagonism would be welcomed TW
I'm answering in the same tone as the post I'm talking about Easy. I'm the one who's been antagonised, not the one being antagonistic.
0 -
Do you frequent SwiftTalk TW?
Quite a few regulars on there who operate as stated.
I don't doubt that, Kjell, but it's a huge step from that to say they must be the ones who don't care about site fee increases which is why I made the comments I did.
0 -
A little less antagonism would be welcomed TW
I'm answering in the same tone as the post I'm talking about Easy. I'm the one who's been antagonised, not the one being antagonistic.
I took it as EasyT talking about others not you TW?
0 -
A little less antagonism would be welcomed TW
I'm answering in the same tone as the post I'm talking about Easy. I'm the one who's been antagonised, not the one being antagonistic.
I took it as EasyT talking about others not you TW?
I sincerely hope so.
0 -
I was talking about TW. He came across as rather acerbic. Perhaps unintentional. Let us not sidetrack however.
No, not intentional, simply responding in kind. We all read tones into words that aren't there. Your own post came across in much the way, Easy. It's what we lose by not hearing the voice or seeing the face.
0 -
Do you frequent SwiftTalk TW?
Quite a few regulars on there who operate as stated.
I don't doubt that, Kjell, but it's a huge step from that to say they must be the ones who don't care about site fee increases which is why I made the comments I did.
If you do not frequent SwiftTalk, you really cannot comment on anything on there.
0 -
Do you frequent SwiftTalk TW?
Quite a few regulars on there who operate as stated.
I don't doubt that, Kjell, but it's a huge step from that to say they must be the ones who don't care about site fee increases which is why I made the comments I did.
If you do not frequent SwiftTalk, you really cannot comment on anything on there.
I'm not commenting on Swift Talk. I'm referring to your assumption that people with RR who change their vans every 2-3 years must be amongst those who do not care about the increase in site fees. It has nothing to do with S/Talk but everything to do with
your assumption. Can you not see that it is as wild a leap as saying those buying new MHs don't care about the increases? And you know that's not true.I quote -
"There does seem to be qiuite a significant cohort of wealthy CC members, you see them on SwiftTalk and Caravanchat, who drive Range Rovers and change their van every 2 or 3 years.
They must be amongst the members who do not care about the increase in site fees!"
0 -
Sunday Departures - the Sequel.
I stayed at Black Knowle late autumn 2013 £17.75 per night. The following early Spring at Sandy Balls for £10. Three years later, Sandy Balls was still £10. The quality IMHO of that site was also better than CC. The CC need to up their game.
0 -
Yes, it was an evening of lively 'debate'.
For the record, I would like to point out that I didn't attack anyone personally, I didn't name any individual and I didn't respond directly to other people's posts, criticising them or saying they were wrong. I simply stated my own views.
This, in my opinion, is how a reasonable debate should go.
A shame that a small group chose to attack me (and others taking a different view to themselves) personally, but they will be sorry to hear that it was like water off a duck's back.
0 -
corners, ypu posted this in response to Ian's view of SB...
"in your opinion of course? Its not a fact they are as good, or have you read seem any sort of report? Again if you have rather than quote it as fact I
would be very interested to see it. You shouln't really pontificate like this you know Ian!"i supported Ian in his post from my own real experience of the place....so, real evidence
your response was in fact, 'conjecture' IMHO
...then perhaps you should read it again....
Ill try and help...
ian suggested that SB was at least the equal of CC sites he had used, you implied this couldnt be the case without some written report (
).please take my post, which agreed with Ian based on my own experiences of several visits to SB, as that 'written report', ie confirmation of what Ian says.....
ergo, your implication suggesting that this couldnt possibly be true (ie Ians opinion) has turned out to be conjecture on your part.....
now, please stop asking every poster to 'prove' their posted opinions (which is what the majority, including yours, are) or we are going to get some pretty pointless and boring threads when i challenge every clause you type....
so, plese take the posts in the spirit that theyre written (by everyone) even if you dont agree with them or you'll have a lot of 'proof' to produce with every post you type.....
now, that would be silly and boring, wouldnt it?
0 -
Sunday Departures - the Sequel.
I stayed at Black Knowle late autumn 2013 £17.75 per night. The following early Spring at Sandy Balls for £10. Three years later, Sandy Balls was still £10. The quality IMHO of that site was also better than CC. The CC need to up their game.
.....ah, Corners......another 'written report'......
thanks, CY.....
0 -
corners, ypu posted this in response to Ian's view of SB...
"in your opinion of course? Its not a fact they are as good, or have you read seem any sort of report? Again if you have rather than quote it as fact I
would be very interested to see it. You shouln't really pontificate like this you know Ian!"i supported Ian in his post from my own real experience of the place....so, real evidence
your response was in fact, 'conjecture' IMHO
...then perhaps you should read it again....
Ill try and help...
ian suggested that SB was at least the equal of CC sites he had used, you implied this couldnt be the case without some written report (
).please take my post, which agreed with Ian based on my own experiences of several visits to SB, as that 'written report', ie confirmation of what Ian says.....
ergo, your implication suggesting that this couldnt possibly be true (ie Ians opinion) has turned out to be conjecture on your part.....
now, please stop asking every poster to 'prove' their posted opinions (which is what the majority, including yours, are) or we are going to get some pretty pointless and boring threads when i challenge every clause you type....
so, plese take the posts in the spirit that theyre written (by everyone) even if you dont agree with them or you'll have a lot of 'proof' to produce with every post you type.....
now, that would be silly and boring, wouldnt it?
Write your comments here...Good post !!!
Cheers ...........K
0 -
corners, ypu posted this in response to Ian's view of SB...
"in your opinion of course? Its not a fact they are as good, or have you read seem any sort of report? Again if you have rather than quote it as fact I
would be very interested to see it. You shouln't really pontificate like this you know Ian!"i supported Ian in his post from my own real experience of the place....so, real evidence
your response was in fact, 'conjecture' IMHO
...then perhaps you should read it again....
Ill try and help...
ian suggested that SB was at least the equal of CC sites he had used, you implied this couldnt be the case without some written report (
).please take my post, which agreed with Ian based on my own experiences of several visits to SB, as that 'written report', ie confirmation of what Ian says.....
ergo, your implication suggesting that this couldnt possibly be true (ie Ians opinion) has turned out to be conjecture on your part.....
now, please stop asking every poster to 'prove' their posted opinions (which is what the majority, including yours, are) or we are going to get some pretty pointless and boring threads when i challenge every clause you type....
so, plese take the posts in the spirit that theyre written (by everyone) even if you dont agree with them or you'll have a lot of 'proof' to produce with every post you type.....
now, that would be silly and boring, wouldnt it?
sorry BB but stop trying to be a mod and state what people can or cannot post on here. That is is not your job..
If people post statistics, 10% of a club site being full for example, then they have to back them up. I never post a statistic (probably because of the way I was educated and trained) with out backing it up.
End of.
PS I accept your previous apology for bullying me
0 -
From what I can see having read posts, looked at various commercial sites and close by CC sites there seems, to me, to be a pattern.
In Peak times CC sites seem to be (for me) good value. In Low season the commercial sites seem better priced.
Mid season and it is variabe. The CC sites and commercial are generally similar prices. It is however variable
0 -
I've not been to SB because it's not in an area we've wanted to visit so can't comment on the quality. However it's a perennial family favourite and considering the prices per night in school holidays are eye wateringly high it suggests to me that it is
very good. We've stayed at many commercial sites that equal CC sites and some much better. One or two have been much worse but that's the way it goesFor me price is not as critical as it is for others as we don't get as many nights away. What I'm looking for is location and value for money. The highest off peak price I've paid at the CC this year was £17. I have no complaints about that.
However in August this year we felt that £26 at a CC site was not as good value as £28 with an alternate provider. Why? The chance of being on grass was too high for us.
i have said many times that I think there's scope to look at off peak pricing to improve take up. I don't think that necessarily means that peak prices have to be whacked up.
The bottom line though is that market forces set prices. I've voted with my wheels for a few summer seasons and the sites are still fully booked
0 -
ok Corners, now youre moving into the realms of fantasy, please provide proof where i have 'bullied' you....
thats a pretty serious allegation on this forum and one i dont take to....you have sleighted/damaged my reputation in public, this post is reported...i am speaking to the CM regarding the way forward...
is this something to do with your training and education?
0 -
Sorry, but isn't this thread getting out of hand ????
i think so, i wont be taking a further part....'for legal reasons'....
0 -
Introducing factors into this thread such as pensions, inflation, 'unpaid' family labour, extension of peak periods and peak prices is pointless.
The CC is a business, not a club or a charity. The membership fee is merely bait on the 'belonging' hook.
Commercial businesses charge what the market will stand, up to the point where the cost suppresses demand to an unprofitable level, just as with airlines, holiday companies, exercise gyms, concert promoters.... even my country club club does it.
Some will consider them affordable and reasonable with regard to their other interests or expenditure and some will not. That's their choice.
0
and now me!