Inspectors' reports
Comments
-
I was suggesting earlier that CL owners should have free membership because the club gains from having thousands of extra sites as part of its network.
We've seen, even from the limited numbers posting on CT, that a lot of people are only members so they can access CLs. They must bring a lot of revenue to the club in terms of membership fees alone.
There are two sides to the story and without knowing the actual costs involved, it’s impossible for us to really grasp the true picture.
1 -
When reading reviews of CLs I often come across new to me CMC members who a) do not frequent this forum and b) Use CLs almost exclusively, so there are quite a few more out there. How many would stay if CLs disappeared from the Club is a mystery but that's for another thread.
0 -
"I think Harry's cash cow comment probably refers to the CL owners being forced to be club members @ £51 p/a each as CG explained earlier".
That's right TW.
Do they not already get automatic inclusion in the handbook? Some of the web site entries are totally devoid of owner input, ie no site information or photos, it shows a little lack of interest to me. The point I was making was if the membership fee is compulsory then does that mean they must pay it or lose the cl. Surely not
0 -
It seems rather draconian, Harry, but nothing would surprise me. Perhaps CG can answer that one.
0 -
OK thanks
1 -
Q. How much does the Club make in revenue from the CL Network?
A. My estimate is that the Club makes between £1M and 3M per year from having the CL Network.Here is some background based on facts published by the Club to support this assumption.
- Membership stands at just over 350,000 households
- Group Revenue in 2016 was £112.6M
- - up 3.6% on 2015
- Surplus after tax was £4.2M
- The Club invested £6M on Club Sites
- "The Club re-invests its surplus funds solely for the benefit of its members". P110 Club Magazine Oct'17
Sources of Club Revenue- 46% Club Sites
- 22.9% Insurance Services
- 14.4% Travel Services
- 13.4% Member Subscriptions
- 3.3% Advertising & Marketing
Member Subscriptions therefore amount to £14,737,000 of total Group Revenue
See pages 109-113 of the October'17 edition of the Magazine for a summary However, you may be surprised that CL's were not mentioned at all in the summary in 2015 or 2016
Member Research published by the Club shows that- 22% of members join the Club 'mainly or only' to access the CL network
- 44% of members (about 154,000) use CL's at least once a year (Spring 2017)
- Around 21% of members nights away are spent on CL's (Spring 2017)
- 6% of members say they are members because they only stay on CL's
- 60% of new members say that access to the CL network influenced their decision to join the club
What does that mean in Club Subscription revenue?- 22% of Member Subscriptions equates to £3,319,448 in 2016
- 6% of Member Subscriptions equates to £905,304 in 2016
Conclusion
So, leaving aside the fact that 60% of members joining say they are influenced to join by the large network and the 44% who occasionally stay on CLs, we have nearly £1M of subscription revenue generated by Members who only stay on CLs and £3M from those who mainly stay on CLs.
Next Question
Now we know the revenue, the follow-on question is: How much does the Club currently spend on maintaining, publicising, enhancing and improving the CL Network for the membership?0 -
Thanks, CG. So the club makes a lot of money from having CLs as part of its network yet makes CL owners pay membership fees.
As Harry asked, what happens if the owner does not pay? Is the CL de-certified?
0 -
Off course the thread is about Inspector so I'm not sure about the relevance of CG club financial break down to the thread. Basically all this info has been forthcoming on various threads including his questionnaire thread
I think the mystery's of site inspection are pretty much universal, I have never seen a report of a Acsi inspection either
0 -
I think I may have just found the answer to my question and also answered that of 'Cornersteady', who said,
"But that 51 pounds a year get them the listing on the website and handbook? Seems cheap for that?"
I've just been looking through the handbook to book a cl in Beccles, Suffolk. Of the cl's listed in the book half are not members and yet have an entry on the web site with images.
Incidentally one cl who was a member appears to have closed as they are not on the website.
0 -
I would also like to know what inspectors look at and what 'advice' they give to the owners. More and more CL's are telling us that the club recommend at starting fee of £15pn and also advise to put in EHU, toilets, showers and hard standing. Lots of us like CL's as they are, granted we do like EHU but can cope without everything else and the CL becoming a mini-site.
We are regular CL users, in fact, use very little else unless the area is lacking. We have left reviews, however since review of mine was removed because the owner didn't like it, we have refrained from doing so. In my opinion, my review was fair and honest and included good and bad points however it was removed. I complained and it was reinstated and we no longer visit that CL.
I have never been on site when an inspector visits - I suspect many call mid-week when the sites are less busy which is a shame as lots of CL's regularly have more than 5 vans on.
0 -
As a Off-Grid CL I am not in agreement with Cholsey Granges comments re a CAMC drawing up a specification etc along with other parties input.
I think a minimum requirement of Drinking Water and CCEP is fine. This has given us the diverse CL network we have now.
Don’t you think we already have more than enough regulation in this country. Having a specification we may be in danger of ending up with uniform 'quality' commercial CLs (mini Club sites).
When I started 4 years ago the inspector said he had attended some meetings where the majority of inspectors wanted a minimum requirement of EHU as well. So I can see where a specification may lead in the end.
“Let it be” I am all for CLs upgrading there sites to fully serviced sites or whatever but just get on with it and dont rope in everyone else
8 -
Agreed. There is room for all types of CL as we all have different requirements and CL owners all have different aspirations.
1 -
But there are still many CLs where the owner won't let us see a photo, and the inspector won't describe what the site is like.
0 -
Perhaps at least one photo should be complusary much the same as membership now is. Some owners might not want photographs published, one has to ask why when all you have to do is have a look at Google earth!
We could have a sticky for posting CL photos?????
I am also in agreement with Johnny57, leave it be and let the owners decide how much they want to invest beyond the minimum requirements of a CDP and fresh water tap.
peedee
1 -
I suppose its what suits the CL owner and their customers. You seem to get very positive reviews so clearly your CL is popular. I don't think its about laying down a minimum requirement for CL's but more to pointing out to CL owners that the provision of extra facilities is likely to bring in more customers and perhaps extend the season. I suppose conversely if the majority of CL's became all singing all dancing then the few that are left that provide a more minimum offer could thrive with those that prefer that sort of environment?
David
1 -
Photos can be useful, but the next dilemma is then how old is/are the photographs? Unfortunately the CL section of the website won't allow visitors to post photos. This is probably for a reason as no doubt some visitors, not content with having a "rant via review" would want to further damn a CL with photos of what they find. Trip Advisor is full of such revenge postings, which are not the best way to get someone to improve a visitor experience, even if they do relieve the need to scream!
Like wise with inspectors reports. They are only one individual's findings, on the day, at that time. Classic example for me used to be annual Fire Service inspection on one of our Sports Halls. We had Officer In and Officer Out, all related to the positioning of a single fire extinguisher! We used a distraction policy when we found out which Officer turned up, it just gave us enough time to move the said extinguisher the required two metres!
I think CLs are like Marmite. Some totally get them, know how to pick a good one, might put up with something not totally perfect. Others want to set the bar very high, nothing wrong with that, but it becomes a problem then for CL owners looking to recoup the cost of installations and on a limit of five pitches that can only be achieved on price. Put CL prices up substantially and I think a lot of members who use mainly CLs will just walk away from the Club. I know we would.The Club provides decent, clean, user friendly facilities across its range of sites. Some are, relatively speaking, and not comparing with commercial or foreign sites, all that a person looking for an easy, no hassle break could wish for from a site. The hardest part of the visit is nothing more than which pitch to choose! Turn CLs into something similar, toilet and shower blocks etc.... and the price on five pitches will be in the realms of Club Sites. So why try and replicate them?
There will be a few CLs, in a perfect location, surrounded by lots of things to see and do, with a bedrock of loyal returning visitors that will thrive, bookings will need to be made a year and more in advance. I know because we use a couple. Others won't be that lucky, no matter what they provide. We stayed on a perfect looking new CL, interesting location, but after one night only we decided to move on. One aspect bothered us enough for us to know we didn't want to stop another night. I left them a good review, but mentioned the irritating factor that spoilt things for us. It was something the CL owners could do nothing about, and for other visitors might not have been an issue. But the location wasn't as perfect as it looked. All down to individual perception.
2 -
The perfect location only exists for the user and other factors can alter that eg some unexpected temporary or long term noise or someone else on site that causes an annoyance etc.
I don't know anything about site inspections and maybe the club could tell us more about these and what is expected. It appears to be personalised rather than standardised at the moment but I guess the basic ethos of a CL is that it is personal to the owner and as long as it's safe to use it will become what some users will love and others will dislike.
The main thing I personally like about CLs is that they are five van sites and I'm happy with no facilities or more as long as the site is receiving a modicum of care and attention. It's lovely to find a nice CL in a good spot but it's a very personal thing, everyone has their own idea of what they like but CLs are certainly worth trying as an alternative place to stay.
5 -
+1 brue!
1 -
I didn't know that brue. I have loads of CL photos, however no doubt they will need resizing on this website, so useless for on here.
0 -
The problem with upping the "minimum spec" for a CL will be obtaining a return on investment for the owner. As has already been mentioned, a five van limit leaves only density of occupation and length of season as factors in the equation without substantial price increases.
Extend the scope of the "spec" and it introduces all manner of additional issues. Toilets/showers will require cleaning/ maintenance. Will provision of such facilities require designing to accommodate the disabled/ separate sex facilities? One can see why CL owners may be reluctant to extend such provision.
I suppose it might be "relatively" cheap to provide some sort of hard-standing/pitch reinforcement to extend the season but other 'bells and whistles' may be a bridge too far.
3 -
I'm sorry if I was not clear in an earlier comment regarding specifications.
To answer the comment I think a minimum requirement of Drinking Water and CCEP is fine. This has given us the diverse CL network we have now.
I agree. I am not advocating a new minimum for a CL. I started my CL along these lines and did not have EHU etc.
What I am asking for is the minimum specification for each of the elements that a CL could have (if they choose to).
ie. if an owner chooses to advertise a toilet on their CL as a listed facility, does that toilet need a handbasin with hot & cold running water, toilet roll, a locking door, a light that works, a means of drying one's hands, and the maximum distance from the pitches to be deemed 'acceptable'. Is a 'portaloo' acceptable? These are the sort of basic guidelines I am looking for.
I am not advocating that CLs get fancier. I'd just like to have a definition of what the Club, and therefore the membership, can expect when they choose a site with a certain facility.
0 -
I don't agree with this "minimum" specification for this and that. We recently stayed on a wonderful CL, except the CDP was a bit cumbersome. The owners were not in the first flush of life and admitted that they couldn't afford to "upgrade" it. If forced to by a minimum spec being imposed on them then they could well have just closed the doors. They will do soon but at their own time and calling. In the meantime members can continue to use their CL.
The beauty of a CL is in the eye of the user shouldn't be in the eye of a committee.
There should just be a generally accepted standard of hygiene and basic provision of clean water and an elsan emptying point. Up to the owner after that how much he wants to improve.
Imposing new specifications will result in a lot more expense for some existing cl owners and I can see even more closures purely based kn cost of improvements to meet such specs.
5 -
yes fully agree
1
