We need more basic facility sites

Well said!👍

The answer is simple. Revenue!  The business (club) needs huge amounts of funds to invest in MORE expensive high revenue pitches and Cabins etc. There seems to be no ethos other than "Loads a Money".

How do you know that there are 'thousands of members' who would jump at this type of site?

It could be that there are 'thousands of members' who have indicated that there should be more fully serviced pitches and the club is aiming to fulfill this request.

Have you considered sites other than those operated by the club? They might more fully provide for what you are looking for.

I know I've posted this before but in the first weekend in March there were more outfits on service pitches than standard pitches, 40 v 35, again the same pattern repeated in mid June with SP fully occupied with under ten standard pitches empty. The same pattern in other sites that have SP. When the club puts in SP, glamping cabins, guess what they well used what does that tell the club? 

Which pitches go first on sites with a choice as at present? HS or grass?

High Onn is closing as it's underused we're told, if you want a pitch at short notice then try on basic sites, again what does that tell the club?

Limited budget? As I've said before the club is sadly not a charity, it's fact of life.

Harry, I asked the question about basic no facility Sites at the AGM last year. The Club’s answer was use CLs.

They don’t care about anyone looking to tour on a reasonable budget, the money is made on the all singing, all dancing sites, so that’s where things are heading. Folks are happy to pay whatever the Club deems the going rate for these type of Sites, so nothing will change. 

Given that nearly all club sites have lots of availability, only six show full for this weekend, and cl's appear to be full (I've just booked a 3 week holiday on cl's and couldn't get on one where I wanted to go) there seems to be more demand for this type of site and that must have something to do with cost of club sites if some of the comments on prices are anything to go by. Basic facility sites will probably always have a future and land for these much surely be easier to find. 

Given the way the economic climate if going, we are all going to have to tighten our belts, I know which sites will suffer and which may prosper. It will be interesting to see what the club say about basic sites then.

Would you expect all club sites to be full for this coming weekend? The weekend before the schools go back, and CLs' appear to be full? What all 2000 of them, how many did you check? 

More demand? There are only five pitches on a CL I believe so easier to fill I would say for one thing. Are those comments on prices on here really representative of the whole membership? 

I'm not sure what you mean by land being easier to come by? How cheaper?

Why is the number of CLs reducing?

That has been said so many times down the every year I've been on CT, it was said at the start of this season with the price increases yet on the sites I've been on it's been busier than ever. But as I always say perhaps next year it will be the case.

Over the years I have used some of the non facility sites and they suit me perfectly well and it would be nice to have more but unlikely I suspect. Earlier this year we stayed at Cadeside, nice little site but I do wonder if it would be there without the large storage compound? A couple of years ago we stayed at Hebden Bridge which is the only no facility site, that I know of, with serviced pitches. Last year we stayed at Northbrook Farm at Worthing and the Club is going to lose half the site to housing but hope to redevelop as a no facility site with some serviced pitches. The stumbling block seems to be that the Club want a bigger storage section but the local Council are not keen so unless they can persuade the Council that could be lost as well?

I think those that want cheaper sites do overlook the fact that there are plenty of people willing to pay for expensive sites. From a purely business point of view such sites make a better investment. I am not even sure that there are many no facility sites out there that could be purchased? I can't remember that last "green field" site that the Club built. In the last 10 years we seem to acquire ready made sites and redevelop them which is costly and the return on investment is only realised if they are full fat sites? I can perfectly see that the Club could argue that if you want less expensive sites then CL's are your choice but mainstream sites will remain at the higher end. We are and have been in a period of double whammy what with COVID and now a financial crisis both of which shake people out of the hobby. We have the prospect of no new ICE cars being sold in a little of eight years time, although hybrids will continue a little longer. So the Club have to second guess where the best investment has to go in order for the Club to survive and I expect they have reached the conclusion it won't be in no facility sites?

David