Should the Club put it's foot down?

I honestly don't think in the longer term it would provide cheaper sites BB. Perhaps initially yes, but then the prices would creep up again. Plus if you wanted it you would be paying for electric on top.

As to either taking electric at a fixed charge or not, as is common in France, I'm not sure how easily that would work with our longer opening period and 16 amp limit. In France the charge was between 2.5 and 4 € for a 6 / 10 amp supply. However, the majority of the sites were only open April to mid / end of September, when the weather is better, particularly in some of the areas they are located.

Here, I wouldn't mind say a £4 reduction in fee in the warmer months and relying on my own facilities. However, how many are going to opt for it in the winter months when consumption is going to be much higher. So the CC would loose money in the summer when they could sell the pitch for £4 more to someone who wants electric but would not consume anywhere near £4 a night. They also wouldn't gain in the winter as folk would take the electric, which could easily cost the £4 or more.

 

whilst implementing a flexible 'pay for use' electric system to reduce overall costs is laudable (for several reasons) it is dead in the water if the staffing levels prevent its smooth administration.

...and this is one of the biggest (cultural) differences where ive seen this type of system work successfully..

correct unfortunately

the bare bones Club staffing model means multi tasking, and while it provides adaptability and versatility, its compromised by staff only being able to be in one place at any time

But having more staff will cost more money and therefore higher pitch fees, you have often said that club sites are too expensive and how it is driving out certain members who can no longer afford prices as they are? So why do you advocate having more staff?

Additionally to compound the above price increase you are saying let's install meters at at significant cost (10,000 new meters at ...) cost using current money reserves that can never be replaced and will offer no advantage at all except perhaps to a few rather than the many.

Oh is it bare bones? most club sites have more than one set of wardens, three sets is common.

 

 

But having more staff will cost more money

not necessarily, some commercial sites have contract cleaners coming in each day to do some of the cleaning with warden type people doubling up in the evening as a final check before lights out, there are lots of models out there that the club could adapt, where theres a will theres a way

The user and all related content has been Deleted User

Don't forget some CAMC sites already have cleaners so the cry often heard - "Nobody can clean the toilets like a CAMC warden" is patently not true.

 

And at the couple of sites that do have contract cleaners ,it is the site staff who "sign off"the work after the contractors have been in to ensure the standards are kept up

So high? Then why are the site so full and the oft quoted "the sites are always full when we want to book" 

Thanks for that Micky😁 but I think if you read my post you will see I did have the maths covered, and said it would increase block closure time. I think in reality the on-site staff might actually have some choice as to how and when they do loo block cleaning, dependent upon other circumstances of course. Perhaps a Warden could let us know? It will vary greatly from site to site, and let’s not forget some sites don’t actually have loo blocks!

But all this talk of who should clean, who should do this or that has led us away from OP, and suggestion of a ban on awning heaters.

Like bans/laws in other aspects of society, it will only work if staffing or technology resources are there to implement and monitor it. It’s fairly easy for a 5 pitch private owner to monitor and remove those who don’t comply. Something entirely different on a 200 pitch multi area site where instant removals are as rare as hens teeth, and the scant staff model has more important priorities.

It’s the same principle that sees folks drive too fast, or petty theft flourish. The resources aren’t there to catch those who do it. Therefore you are left with two options.....education/self regulation, or social engineering. One relies upon common sense/ a moral compass, the other is more covert and controversial. One is asking people to comply because it’s the right thing to do from a resource sharing/environmental principle, the other is only allowing a given usage (6amps, 10amps) so that folks are forced into compliance, but with a certain degree of choice. We all make trade offs every day based on such taxation/ pricing. 🤔🙂

 

The user and all related content has been Deleted User