Cottage Fees Question
- Thread starter Tony_B
- Start date
Maj
Active member
Hi,
We at the MNRC, charge ?5.00 for guests, ?3.50 for members, ?3.50 for members children (under 18), ?3.00 camping (members or guests) & a suggested ?1.00 day fee. Showers are instantaneous electric at 20p. The drying cupboard is free and is heated whenever there is a demand on the boiler (from heating or hot water) with an override facility to heat it when no boiler demand. Our Hut fees go into a "Hut account" which pays for all Hut related expenses (Utilities, repair & maint, Build & Cont Ins, Wi-Fi etc). By doing it this way, those that use the Hut and facilities effectively pay for it on a pro-rata basis. Membership related expenses (BCA related, Newsletter, Library books etc) come from the "Membership account" obviously funded from membership fees. Sometimes things do fall into a grey area in between the two accounts, so the above is a strong guide but not cast in concrete (hmm! concrete casting - prob Hut account unless it's for an activity project!).
We base our Membership fee and Hut fees on what is required to cover our cost and keep a contingency fund and to allow for any predicted major projects/expenses. We don't actively advertise our Hut (except in descent) since we feel that the Hut is primarily there for the benefit of the membership. So all the time we are getting enough income from regular guest groups and member useage to keep the Hut account in the black, we don't feel the need to raise our fees or increase advertising for guest groups. Although if the general accommodation rate on Mendip were to change, I'm sure we would consider doing likewise.
I do like the idea of perhaps charging non caving/caving related guest bookings a higher rate, such that we are not seen as cheap accommodation for anyone. Committee discusion I think.
Maj.
We at the MNRC, charge ?5.00 for guests, ?3.50 for members, ?3.50 for members children (under 18), ?3.00 camping (members or guests) & a suggested ?1.00 day fee. Showers are instantaneous electric at 20p. The drying cupboard is free and is heated whenever there is a demand on the boiler (from heating or hot water) with an override facility to heat it when no boiler demand. Our Hut fees go into a "Hut account" which pays for all Hut related expenses (Utilities, repair & maint, Build & Cont Ins, Wi-Fi etc). By doing it this way, those that use the Hut and facilities effectively pay for it on a pro-rata basis. Membership related expenses (BCA related, Newsletter, Library books etc) come from the "Membership account" obviously funded from membership fees. Sometimes things do fall into a grey area in between the two accounts, so the above is a strong guide but not cast in concrete (hmm! concrete casting - prob Hut account unless it's for an activity project!).
We base our Membership fee and Hut fees on what is required to cover our cost and keep a contingency fund and to allow for any predicted major projects/expenses. We don't actively advertise our Hut (except in descent) since we feel that the Hut is primarily there for the benefit of the membership. So all the time we are getting enough income from regular guest groups and member useage to keep the Hut account in the black, we don't feel the need to raise our fees or increase advertising for guest groups. Although if the general accommodation rate on Mendip were to change, I'm sure we would consider doing likewise.
I do like the idea of perhaps charging non caving/caving related guest bookings a higher rate, such that we are not seen as cheap accommodation for anyone. Committee discusion I think.
Maj.
AndyF
New member
paul said:
I don't want to go to O.T. but just tying up with the other thread on why there are relatively few female/family/ethnic cavers, the quality of facilities has a bearing I think. "Blokes" will put up with anything but I think if caving does want to appeal to a wider spectrum then upgrading facilities is a good step.
Continental huts are not like UK huts, and there is a reason for that...
graham
New member
AndyF said:
Once turned up at a well-know hut with two females (the lady wife & a friend) & asked if they had any room. "Sure" came the reply. The ladies, however, asked to inspect the facilities first. Having done so, they agreed to stay. "Clearly got no standards" said the inhabitant.
JB
Member
Personally I think that paying ?5 per person non-member rate is spot on. I think it's very important for huts to remain as affordable accommodation for those who don't mind roughing it a bit. There are plenty of commercial bunkhouses/youth hostels where you can get a better standard of accommodation at a higher price. Truly budget options are limited and that's why I would like to see the current sort of prices remain if possible. Would hate to see the young, students, those without much income drop off the scene because they can't afford to stay in the club huts. Caving would be the worse for that.
Jules.
Jules.
Peter Burgess
New member
Well said, Ric. We have had a few "pwecious" members over the years who would rather use a B&B or a "better" club cottage, but they have been few and far between, and, I might add, the ones that come to mind were male! That was their choice of course, and no doubt were I of a similar mind, I would do the same.owd git said:It could be that we have; youth hostels, b&b, motels and a vast range of hotels; club huts are surly club huts!
If you want a more expensive and questionably less suitable environment they are out there. :ang:
O. G.
As for pricing -
At a time of rising prices everywhere, then what on earth are people suggesting when they say fees are too low, merely because other clubs charge a bit more, or a pint of beer is more expensive? Why on earth would anybody raise fees, something we CAN control, when all around us other costs are rising over which we have no control at all.
Club members are not stupid - they will understand that costs must be met and that maintenance and repairs will be required. But why set fees any higher than to cover those costs? The only people who will be out of pocket will be ourselves.
Perhaps instead of pointing out how cheap fees are by comparing them to the price of beer, why not point out how expensive beer is when even accommodation charges for a weekend's activity are less than the cost of a drink or two.
I suggest that people who would like to see fees higher than they really need to be, know the cost of everything but the value of nothing. And both our Mendip cabin and the Welsh Stump are of huge value to the group, and their low costs make us really appreciate their value to us.
Peter Burgess
New member
Peter Burgess said:
That should, of course, have been PRICE of everything, not COST of everything. A minor but important difference.
Bob Mehew
Well-known member
A small curiosity of life, the SMC hut not a stone's throw away from the Grampian hut in Elphin (see http://www.smc.org.uk/Huts/Huts.php ) charges ?8 per night verses ?5 for what looks like a very similar standard of accommodation. Do climbers have more money than cavers?
SamT
Moderator
JB said:
well said jules - not everybody is in their mid forties, well established career and reasonable expendable income.
I dont understand the logic of "well its cost you ?50 quid petrol, you're happy to spend ?3 on a pint therefore you should be happy to pay more for a hut".
Its more like - its already cost me ?50quid in petrol, I cant believe beer is now ?3.00 a pint and I'm certainly not happy about it so its a bloody good job the hut is only a fiver otherwise I'd give up coming for the weekend.
I am genuinely drinking much less these days on the grounds that its too bloody expensive.
Just because the price of beer and petrol are inflating out of control, why should hut fee's. In a fair world, the income made in fees should match the cost of upkeep, with a little bit of profit that can be ploughed back in in some way, therefore the only reason for an increase should be if the cost of upkeep has increased or a significant improvement is planned and needs to be funded, not just the fact someone thinks "fee's are really cheap compared with X"
[/2p]
SpeleoTrog
Member
owd git said:
I hope that was a typo! I know plenty of surly cavers but the huts are generally pleasant enough!
