The increasing cost of site fees.
Comments
-
Thanks canenriot! Sounds very nice.
I have just been looking at where we used to stay in Cornwall, back in the 1980's and 90's. It was a lovely family run site in those days, called Yeate Farm, in Bodinnick. Site was sold, and is now known as Penmarlam Caravan Park. Has expanded and gone on to win various awards, with great reviews. Might be tempted into a return visit, we still have friends in the area.
0 -
No of course they don't, all commercials are built on free land with no rates and built and staffed by volunteers!
What a nonsense statement.
If the club with its vast wealth and economy of scale has higher overheads than a commercial site then they should be worried.
1 -
One commercial site run and staffed mainly by family members who live in an adjacent farmhouse? Yeah, of course the Club will have lower overheads than that. 🙄
1 -
Definition: Overhead costs are indirect costs that can't be traced back to a specific product as well as ongoing administrative expenses that do not generate revenues. These costs do not involve direct labour, direct materials, or direct expenses that customers pay for.
Therefore the economy of scale dictates that the overheads for the club should be substantially proportionally lower than for a commercial site.
0 -
Thanks for explaining that - I think.
0 -
why would a decent commercial site which runs a bar, restaurant, needs a pool attendant, provides dedicated reception staff (often 3 or 4), maintenance staff, toilet cleaning etc, etc be able to do this with family members?
a sweeping generalisation?
there might be cheaper part time staff for the cleaning, or even for reception but this doesn't affect the level of staff in the office.
others seem to work full time and no obvious evidence that connected (or not) to a site.
compare that to the club staff model where (often) one couple (on great salaries?) have to move away from being the focus (in the office) to carry out toilet cleaning and maintenance roles (grass cutting, bins, etc) reducing their obvious 'presence' and service levels by closing toilets/showers.
the club couldn't staff its site operation more cheaply, could it?
2 -
That did apply before our "Nanny state" in the shape of H&S and all that has blossomed with it including the litigation society,stepped in and made it "difficult "for "unqualified"staff to carry out maintanance or repairs hence the rise in " qualified contractors"adding to costs
0 -
why would a decent commercial site which runs a bar, restaurant, needs a pool attendant, provides dedicated reception staff (often 3 or 4), maintenance staff, toilet cleaning etc, etc be able to do this with family members?
Any UK site in particular BB? Not one of PeeDee's imaginary sites I hope
2 -
now why would you say a silly thing like that?
if I was one or two of the more sensitive souls on CT I might say that was insulting
however, i was at both Henley Four Oaks (3 days) and Swiss Farm (4 days) last week....the sites are only a few hundred metres apart, so was able to make a relevant comparison.
the difference in staffing levels was marked, and as I described above.
no specific evidence that the ten (or more) staff I saw on site were 'family members' or not....do they have printed tee shirts?
either way, in comparison, the club onsite staffing model/level is always just about as bare as it could be...
perhaps the warden could get their cousins over to help with the toilet cleaning so as not to have to leave reception?
the whole CC daily site cycle is geared aaround the fact that staff have to move away from one job to take on another....ensuring that customers fit around these tasks....not the other way round.
you don't see reception staff at Swiss Farm cutting the grass, nor cleaning the toilets, nor manning the bar/restaurant....they are where any customer facing staff should be.....manning reception/office from opening time until it shuts.
no toilets/showers were closed in the making of this post
1 -
Lots like that down here in Devon and Cornwall - such as Stowford Meadows, Hendra Holiday Park, Widemouth Bay, Cofton Holidays, Lanyon Holiday Park, Newperran, and so on. None of them imaginary.
1 -
This recurring discussion about prices is pointless in a way ( though doubtless gives some folk a chance to vent their spleen against the club!
) since it will always be possible to find both more expensive and less expensive sites within close proximity and it depends on one's circumstances.An example - last week I had a few days, solo, at Cirencester Park, costing just under £16 a night. Nice and quiet away from traffic noise, adjacent to the park itself, etc. By contrast, I could have stayed on the opposite side of town at Mayfield Park, close to the busy A417, which because of their pricing structure would have cost me £25 a night, with either full payment up front or 1 night's deposit + £10 "administration fee" and nowhere immediately off site for dog walking. Now Mayfield may be a very nice site, I've never stayed there, but for me it was an easy decision to make!
0 -
but the cleaner saw her and directed her to the gents showers.
2 -
If is very interesting to read all messages sent in but through it all we forget the people who make the club and sites worth the visits is the WARDENS they put up with old grumps like myself and try the best when asked to control the wild life and birds and insects they deserve every penny they earn and a small increase in remumeration will not go a miss I have spent 122 days this year 63 of them on sites within the M25 and other sites around the country from central Scotland to get there in covering 1729 miles and over all the cost sites and fuel worked out at £28.29 per day. So if you can reject a small increase in site fees of them I'm totaly misitfied becacuse where can 2 people stay that time for that that kind of outlay. I have been caravaning for for more than fifty years and the best is still to come.
2 -
sorry, M, I don't agree. the word 'recurring' is a big clue to the rising levels of club prices and the fact that members are coming on CT to make the point.
id put rising prices (along with a couple of other recurring gripes) right at the top of members' concerns.
BTW, if you'd had Mrs M with you, your site fee would have been around £22.50, a much fairer price comparison, considering that's how most commercials are set up and the great majority travel.
0 -
ET, I've stayed at Stowford, Hendraand Cofton and agree they are all well appointed (and staffed up accordingly).
0 -
Very interesting posts, but the comparisons are not valid really. No one is comparing like for like Sites. Many of the examples given are holiday parks, touring pitches are a small part of the overall provision of the site. They have other aspects such as static rents, cottage fees, restaurants, that off set touring pitch provision. They tend to be a destination in themselves, an easy option for families etc..... who just want to go somewhere and stay primarily on the site campus.
Those overseas require a method of travelling there that needs to be factored into the overall cost of a stay, as does a drive to a Club Site.
Most Club Sites are nothing more than dormitory pitches, but located in or close by other attractions. It's the drive to make them become more than this that will put up prices. A radical step changing the whole nature of what the Club provides. It may happen, it may be just what it needs to get families and younger members in. But it might also alienate members who didn't join to have lots of things to do on site, knowing that they can holiday elsewhere to get the same.
Could be a different Membership is required? Let's call one Full, access every site and CLs. The other could be Touring, access to only certain Club Sites and CLs. At a lower price. At least it would give folks choice. Club might need to up its game on some Club Sites, more eateries, more to do, more staff around, paid for by Members who want it. Tidy up the basic sites, but leave them with basic facilities, and charge more basic prices. Just somewhere safe and legal to park up, take on water, dump waste, watch the sunset.
Food for thought, bit different.
2 -
Try a UK Leisure Centre AD, my first student post was in one with mixed changing rooms. 1978. As are most nowadays, same as motorway loos and showers, staffed by both sexes. It's nothing new in this country.
0 -
whatever will those "foreigners think of next"
No idea AD, but it's a far more interesting topic than the ultra boring subject of site fees.........
1 -
very good point all round +1, in my view it is the wardens who make club sites what they are. They actually live on site, not come at 9 and go at 5 or whatever and therefore is something isn't right they can't hide or blame the other shift. They take a pride in the duties, be it toilet cleaning or grass cutting and coupled with the above do it very well indeed, and there is always someone in the office to deal with those on site (maybe not during mid morning to 12 on some single warden sites) even then it is never a problem and no one complains. They are also club members and experienced caravaners or motor-homers themselves so can advise and practical help when needed. I'm not sure office staff/grass cutters/toilets cleaners bought in for a shift will be that experienced.
So why change a system that works extremely well,and is extremly is popular ?
3 -
Members come on CT to make all sorts of points, often vague generalisations, BB.
So I give an actual example which you dismiss as somehow untypical? (No more untypical than quoting, say, Haven at £7 a night at a time of year when "most" aren't touring I'd have thought!) Did you read the bit where I said "depending on one's circumstances"? The club pricing structure is set up differently to most commercials. Isn't it actually a benefit to solos that the club has the pricing structure it does?
My main point was that, in any area you can find examples of more as well as less expensive sites than club sites - surely that is "undeniable" (buzz word of the week, apparently!)
Anyway, Mayfield would still have worked out more expensive and in a much less pleasant location.
3 -
right at the top of members' concerns
A little disingenuous there How can you speak for all club members?
BB, the best you could say is that it is of concern to some members of CT?
Even on CT (which has how many regulars out of how many thousands more that use club sites but don't use CT?) it is not all members of CT that would support you. For every member you claim is saying it right at the top of their concerns I could post another CT member where it is not.
3 -
+1
1
