CC and Dog peeing

[francisgraham]

CliveH - 2012-03-10 10:00 AM"You cannot spend turnover, you can only spend profit, and what is undisputed is that the CC is a mutual, or co-operative where all profits are kept by the club for the final benefit of the members."I suppose it depends upon your definition of "spend" - but to my mind if you do not "spend" turnover it is profit. Turnover consists of income and expenditure - to get "turnover" you spend money on the building blocks of your business and then sell those building blocks. If you can sell them at more than the unit cost to you - you make a profit. If you sell each unit at less than cost price you make a loss.But the point is that a business be it in profit or a loss still "spends" Me thinks FG that you need to think things through a bit more.And please FG - do not go off on one trying to prove that you are right! - I fully accept that when it comes to being belligerent I cannot compete with you - if I try you will beat me with your greater expertise in this specific area (lol)

Why are you engaging in this nit-picking and trying to over-complicate what is, in essence, one of the simplest terms in business? In many years of dealing with businesses in the U.K. turnover means one thing and one thing only, in that it is a synonym for sales. So, if the CC has a turnover of £100 million that is the amount of money taken in sales of site fees and income from other services.

Profit is that which is left after you have deducted all your trading expenses and taxes. Companies then disperse the profits, or a proportion of them, to the shareholders.

If the CC makes a profit it cannot disperse it to shareholders. It must retain the profits until needed and then, when a site or suitable land becomes available to expand its network, it may well spend a few million.

Finally, don't you think it odd that you accuse me of not thinking, further accuse me of trying to prove that I'm right and then you call me belligerent! You never try to prove that your point of view is right do you? Of course you don't!

Just for once please try to debate with someone without loading up the baggage from previous encounters. Whether it's me or Robinhood for example you seem unable, or unwilling, to treat a debate in isolation.

[Guest pelmetman]

francisgraham - 2012-03-10 9:31 AMAnyway, how is the CC different now from twenty years ago? How has it changed in that period?

Well for a start the sites were more spacious pitches were further apart, kids could play as the vans were not on top of each other, which gave a more relaxed atmosphere...............when compared to todays approach of regimentation, in order to cram more vans on and like a corporation earn more dosh...............at the expense of a more laid back approach.......which in my opinion was conducive to a more relaxed camping experience ;-)But as I have said in my previous posts........."If true"...........then this rule will course ructions.........as I expect the dog owning members may not be equal to the non dog owners, bur I suspect they make up the majority of regular CC users ;-)

[francisgraham]

pelmetman - 2012-03-10 10:23 AM

francisgraham - 2012-03-10 9:31 AMAnyway, how is the CC different now from twenty years ago? How has it changed in that period?

Well for a start the sites were more spacious pitches were further apart, kids could play as the vans were not on top of each other, which gave a more relaxed atmosphere...............when compared to todays approach of regimentation, in order to cram more vans on and like a corporation earn more dosh...............at the expense of a more laid back approach.......which in my opinion was conducive to a more relaxed camping experience ;-)But as I have said in my previous posts........."If true"...........then this rule will course ructions.........as I expect the dog owning members may not be equal to the non dog owners, bur I suspect they make up the majority of regular CC users ;-)

So that's it is it? Your view on how the CC was very different 20 years ago is that in your fevered imagination the pitches were bigger?

Well, all I can say is that they must have been massive because there are few pitches on foreign sites that I've used recently that are as big as the CC ones that I've come across!

I shall wait for those were were around twenty years ago to confirm your view that the CC has been deliberately reducing its pitch sizes but it's looking more and more as if your antipathy to the club is just another example of your resentment for any person or organisation that is successful!

Anyway, you really should join the C & CC. You'll then have a whole new 'corporation' to whinge about and, with a bit of luck, you'll discover that its chief executive is paid a decent salary and then you can really get wound up!

By the way, did all those kids happily playing on the acres of large pitches all those years ago realise that they were rolling about in lots of dog p*ss?

[donna miller]

Oh FFS, Takeaflight probably meant that in the last 9 years the CC have only spent the EQUIVELENT of 1 years turnover.

 

Francis, why does every thread have to turn into a p155ing contest to see who can define a word or statement the most accurate. Even I, a lowly woman knew what he meant. For an extremely intelligent man, you seem not to have developed the same level of social interaction skills.

 

The CL's are operated on a franchise basis, I know this because I looked into it, so the CC get their pound of flesh regardless of whether they own the site or not, and believe me, the rules are there, and many are ludicrous.

 

Simple solution..............ban dogs, ban kids, ban pensioners, ban motorhomes, ban bar-b-bq's, ban everything, then you lot would have bugger all to complain about.

*-)

[francisgraham]

donna miller - 2012-03-10 11:41 AMOh FFS, Takeaflight probably meant that in the last 9 years the CC have only spent the EQUIVELENT of 1 years turnover.Francis, why does every thread have to turn into a p155ing contest to see who can define a word or statement the most accurate. Even I, a lowly woman knew what he meant. For an extremely intelligent man, you seem not to have developed the same level of social interaction skills.The CL's are operated on a franchise basis, I know this because I looked into it, so the CC get their pound of flesh regardless of whether they own the site or not, and believe me, the rules are there, and many are ludicrous.Simple solution..............ban dogs, ban kids, ban pensioners, ban motorhomes, ban bar-b-bq's, ban everything, then you lot would have bugger all to complain about. *-)

And why is it me that's started the p*ssing contest and not takeaflight who challenged me. Why aren't you attacking CliveH who wrote a whole post challenging my definition of the word 'turnover'.

It wasn't me that started the debate about the definition of the word but it's me whom you attack. Why is that?

His post was unambiguous with no mention of the word 'equivalent' so I'm not sure how you can read his mind. He said that the CC had only spent one year's turnover in the last nine years. This is what he wrote:

.. their turnover is 100 million per year, in the last 9 they have spent only 1 years turnover. 

That to me seems a large spend! If your firm has a turnover of one million per annum I would assume that its net profit is between £50 and £100K.

So if you spend the equivalent of one year's turnover from your profits, you're actually spending more than nine years' profits!

Now if takeaflight actually meant something very different, perhaps he should have said so?

But it's all pretty irrelevent as I was simply making the point that the CC is a mutal, with no shareholders and if it can't distribute its profits as dividends that it must add them to the balance sheet for future projects. 

I would dispute your view about CLs being a franchise in the accepted sense of the word. Are you suggesting that, for every booking that a CL takes, the CC gets a cut? That is not what I have been lead to believe. Perhaps you can enlighten us on this?

Anyway, what are these ludicrous rules that you talk about? Perhaps, once again, you can enlighten us? And finally, can you please drop all this sexist crap about you being 'only a woman'? What on earth does that have do do with anything in the 21st Century? You make such a song and dance about it that I'm beginning to wonder if you really are a woman!

Edited to say: Don't bother trying to prove that CL owners pay a franchise fee on bookings. They do not. See item two on this link.

CL owners set and retain all fees! So it would appear that when you 'looked into it', you must have looked in the wrong place.

http://www.caravanclub.co.uk/about-us/run-your-own-site/certificated-location/

[Guest pelmetman]

francisgraham - 2012-03-10 11:24 AMSo that's it is it? Your view on how the CC was very different 20 years ago is that in your fevered imagination the pitches were bigger?

Well, all I can say is that they must have been massive because there are few pitches on foreign sites that I've used recently that are as big as the CC ones that I've come across!

I shall wait for those were were around twenty years ago to confirm your view that the CC has been deliberately reducing its pitch sizes but it's looking more and more as if your antipathy to the club is just another example of your resentment for any person or organisation that is successful!

Anyway, you really should join the C & CC. You'll then have a whole new 'corporation' to whinge about and, with a bit of luck, you'll discover that its chief executive is paid a decent salary and then you can really get wound up!

By the way, did all those kids happily playing on the acres of large pitches all those years ago realise that they were rolling about in lots of dog p*ss?

..................... *-)

[malc d]

pelmetman - 2012-03-09 6:12 PM

 

Agreed Clive we would never let Troy foul any ones pitch or ours ;-)..................But if true.... this is typical of the Caravan Corporation *-)............more Petty fogging rules.......no doubt the numpty who came up with this idea is either a serial dog hater or a non camper......or both *-)

 

 

 

I don't know where all this is going to end.

 

Round our way the council have even made it illegal for dog owners to allow their dogs to foul footpaths and ANY public places !

 

Any more petty fogging rules like that from these numpties and I'll have to consider emigration.

 

 

 

(lol)

[Guest pelmetman]

malc d - 2012-03-10 1:48 PM

 

pelmetman - 2012-03-09 6:12 PM

 

Agreed Clive we would never let Troy foul any ones pitch or ours ;-)..................But if true.... this is typical of the Caravan Corporation *-)............more Petty fogging rules.......no doubt the numpty who came up with this idea is either a serial dog hater or a non camper......or both *-)

 

 

 

I don't know where all this is going to end.

 

Round our way the council have even made it illegal for dog owners to allow their dogs to foul footpaths and ANY public places !

 

Any more petty fogging rules like that from these numpties and I'll have to consider emigration.

 

 

 

(lol)

 

That gives me another new business idea ;-).................Dog Nappies :-D..........

[francisgraham]

malc d - 2012-03-10 1:48 PM

pelmetman - 2012-03-09 6:12 PMAgreed Clive we would never let Troy foul any ones pitch or ours ;-)..................But if true.... this is typical of the Caravan Corporation *-)............more Petty fogging rules.......no doubt the numpty who came up with this idea is either a serial dog hater or a non camper......or both *-)

I don't know where all this is going to end.Round our way the council have even made it illegal for dog owners to allow their dogs to foul footpaths and ANY public places !Any more petty fogging rules like that from these numpties and I'll have to consider emigration. (lol)

Quite right! It's ludicrous that we have all these laws and rules. Why do we need them? Dog owners would never allow their dogs to crap on the public highway, or in public places, as we all know that they are, without exception, fine and upstanding and socially responsible citizens.

You've made me realise that the stuff that I see all over the place must be from some very large birds! Silly me!

[Guest pelmetman]

francisgraham - 2012-03-10 4:46 PM

malc d - 2012-03-10 1:48 PM

pelmetman - 2012-03-09 6:12 PMAgreed Clive we would never let Troy foul any ones pitch or ours ;-)..................But if true.... this is typical of the Caravan Corporation *-)............more Petty fogging rules.......no doubt the numpty who came up with this idea is either a serial dog hater or a non camper......or both *-)

I don't know where all this is going to end.Round our way the council have even made it illegal for dog owners to allow their dogs to foul footpaths and ANY public places !Any more petty fogging rules like that from these numpties and I'll have to consider emigration. (lol)

Quite right! It's ludicrous that we have all these laws and rules. Why do we need them? Dog owners would never allow their dogs to crap on the public highway, or in public places, as we all know that they are, without exception, fine and upstanding and socially responsible citizens.

You've made me realise that the stuff that I see all over the place must be from some very large birds! Silly me!

Do all the rules and regulations stop it happening Francis? ;-)......................mind you I guess it gives some poor lawyer a job drawing them up :D.................how does that old saying go "Where there's sh*t there's money" (lol) (lol)

[francisgraham]

pelmetman - 2012-03-10 5:19 PM

francisgraham - 2012-03-10 4:46 PM

malc d - 2012-03-10 1:48 PM

pelmetman - 2012-03-09 6:12 PMAgreed Clive we would never let Troy foul any ones pitch or ours ;-)..................But if true.... this is typical of the Caravan Corporation *-)............more Petty fogging rules.......no doubt the numpty who came up with this idea is either a serial dog hater or a non camper......or both *-)

I don't know where all this is going to end.Round our way the council have even made it illegal for dog owners to allow their dogs to foul footpaths and ANY public places !Any more petty fogging rules like that from these numpties and I'll have to consider emigration. (lol)

Quite right! It's ludicrous that we have all these laws and rules. Why do we need them? Dog owners would never allow their dogs to crap on the public highway, or in public places, as we all know that they are, without exception, fine and upstanding and socially responsible citizens.

You've made me realise that the stuff that I see all over the place must be from some very large birds! Silly me!

Do all the rules and regulations stop it happening Francis? ;-)......................mind you I guess it gives some poor lawyer a job drawing them up :D.................how does that old saying go "Where there's sh*t there's money" (lol) (lol)

Do rules and laws stop things happening? Is that a serious question?

Do you drink and drive? Do you exceed the speed limit by 50%?

If you don't do these things is it because you're a wonderful person or because you're scared of the consequences? Most people behave well because of the law. There will always be a minority who flout it but, without rules and regulations, life would be intolerable as dog owners themselves have proved.

Before strict laws on dog fouling, owners would let their animals crap anywhere. Why do you think that the rules had to be introduced? It was because we were sick and fed up up of stepping in dog dirt all over the place!

I really do find it laughable that those people who bang on the most about law breakers are the first ones to moan when a law affects them.

[Guest pelmetman]

francisgraham - 2012-03-10 5:30 PM There will always be a minority who flout it but, without rules and regulations,

 

Exactly....... so your laws are targeted at the minority....................has it stopped them? ;-)

[takeaflight]

donna miller - 2012-03-10 11:41 AM

 

Oh FFS, Takeaflight probably meant that in the last 9 years the CC have only spent the EQUIVELENT of 1 years turnover.

*-)

 

Donna is correct, my apology's, late night, red stuff etc etc.

 

IMHO It seems to me for a club to employ 800 staff with 250 at an head office appears some what more to do with empire building than running a camping organisation for members benefits .

 

With respect to whether it's a new rule or not I refer you to a thread on a well known paid forum :

 

"unhappy experience at white water,caravan club site,stockton" under pets

 

Not being a member or having a dog, one could argue that what' it to do with me ?

 

Well I just feel that this country that used to have the benefit of great men and women, IMO Douglas Bader being one, making it a Great Britain, is now becoming more and more under the power of idiots that sit in their ivory towers and make up rules, more for there own egos and quite often in a knee jerk reaction to some whining busy body that as nothing better to do than complain about a clarkson joke.

[Guest pelmetman]

On our local news there has been an item about the council telling people to take down pirate flags.........not once but twice *-)..................Must be nice to have such an important job at the council (lol) (lol)

[francisgraham]

pelmetman - 2012-03-10 5:43 PM

francisgraham - 2012-03-10 5:30 PM There will always be a minority who flout it but, without rules and regulations,

Exactly....... so your laws are targeted at the minority....................has it stopped them? ;-)

As an example, before the breathalyser laws, thousands of people risked drinking and driving. Now they don't and only a tiny minority take the risk.

But anyway, I give up. It's just pointless. 

[francisgraham]

takeaflight - 2012-03-10 6:03 PM  It seems to me for a club to employ 800 staff with 250 at an head office appears some what more to do with empire building than running a camping organisation for members benefits .

So at what level should the CC have stopped growing? When it only had forty sites or sixty? Don't you want it to have many more sites which benefits us all?

Should it not offer ferry deals and insurance, the profits from which actually benefit us all in greater revenue, which means more money to open even more sites?

And who benefits from the 'empire building'. The club has no shareholders and is a mutual with every penny ultimately going back into the services for members. The salary of the chief executive and others is determined by a voluntary council of members, who are not paid.

So where should it have stopped? 100 employees, five hundred?

In the 100 years of existence it has grown considerably to the benefit of all the members, with more sites, more CLs, more services that many of us use (I now insure my 'van through the CC) so again, where should it have stopped?

Instead of constantly denigrating what has been a huge success story you really should consider asking the CC to run the country!

[Guest pelmetman]

francisgraham - 2012-03-10 6:09 PM

pelmetman - 2012-03-10 5:43 PM

francisgraham - 2012-03-10 5:30 PM There will always be a minority who flout it but, without rules and regulations,

Exactly....... so your laws are targeted at the minority....................has it stopped them? ;-)

As an example, before the breathalyser laws, thousands of people risked drinking and driving. Now they don't and only a tiny minority take the risk.

But anyway, I give up. It's just pointless. 

Nah....... its not pointless Francis ;-).............The point is most people stopped drinking and driving once they realised it was dangerous and anti social..............and it became socially unacceptable amongst the general population..................the point I'm trying to make is.... more rules and regulations don't make a blind bit of difference ;-)................social education does..........ie tell Joe public the problem often enough and it will sink in :D..............which is why smoking is slowly dying out............not because of all the rules but because people now know the consequences ;-)

[Guest pelmetman]

francisgraham - 2012-03-10 6:18 PM

And who benefits from the 'empire building'. The club has no shareholders and is a mutual with every penny ultimately going back into the services for members. The salary of the chief executive and others is determined by a voluntary council of members, who are not paid.

 

Who invites the voluntary council?................I've not been asked 8-)

[takeaflight]

One other point that I must make with respect to non dog owners being feed up with stepping in Cr*p every where.

 

Until recently I was a dog owner in fact for the last 14 years I had one and throughout those years virtually every day at least three times a day I walked Charlie, more often than not with other dog owners and their pets. On the whole we walked where other dogs where exercised, so by the laws of average you would think I must have stepped in tons of Cr*p.

 

Not once, the only time I did was in my own garden where by I had missed a bit.

 

Another urban miff, equal to gassing.

[Colin Leake]

I don't see the problem with dogs. All you need is one of those glass bottle things they use in hospitals attached to a stick. Every time the dog clocks his leg you can catch the pee in the bottle and dispose of it later. For bitches a small potty on a stick should work.

 

Why does it take an old duffer like me to come up with the obvious solution?

 

P.S. No doubt you all be pleased to learn that the Bear is fully toilet trained though there have been a few raised eyebrows when he strolls into the toilet block. So far the wardens have made no adverse comments!

[donna miller]

francisgraham - 2012-03-10 12:11 PM

And why is it me that's started the p*ssing contest and not takeaflight who challenged me. Why aren't you attacking CliveH who wrote a whole post challenging my definition of the word 'turnover'

Because my dear man, you were the one who felt the need to bring up the fact that you can't spend turnover, instead of using your obvious intelligence to realise what was actually meant, and I haven't challenged Clive, (Note, challenged, not ATTACKED) because, as he is an expert in all matters of finance, and I'm not,therefore I would not feel qualified to.

It wasn't me that started the debate about the definition of the word but it's me whom you attack. Why is that?

Where is all this ATTACK coming from?, If you consider everything that anybody says against you as an attack, then you Sir are guilty of ATTACKING nearly everybody on here, please grow up.

His post was unambiguous with no mention of the word 'equivalent' so I'm not sure how you can read his mind. He said that the CC had only spent one year's turnover in the last nine years.

In the same way I used logic to understand that you are probably not as much of an overbearing, pompous, stuck up pillock as you come across as in your posts.

This is what he wrote:"their turnover is 100 million per year, in the last 9 they have spent only 1 years turnover.That to me seems a large spend! If your firm has a turnover of one million per annum I would assume that its net profit is between £50 and £100K.So if you spend the equivalent of one year's turnover from your profits, you're actually spending more than nine years' profits!Now if takeaflight actually meant something very different, perhaps he should have said so?, But it's all pretty irrelevent as I was simply making the point that the CC is a mutal, with no shareholders and if it can't distribute its profits as dividends that it must add them to the balance sheet for future projects.

Sorry, I fell asleep halfway through that.

I would dispute your view about CLs being a franchise in the accepted sense of the word. Are you suggesting that, for every booking that a CL takes, the CC gets a cut? That is not what I have been lead to believe. Perhaps you can enlighten us on this?

Actually, you are correct in that, that was my mistake, it was the Camping and Caravan Club we applied to franchise with, link below.http://www.whichfranchise.com/franchisorPage.cfm?companyID=2405

And finally, can you please drop all this sexist crap about you being 'only a woman'? What on earth does that have do do with anything in the 21st Century? You make such a song and dance about it that I'm beginning to wonder if you really are a woman!

Hardly a song and dance, but hey-ho here we go,It might have something to do with the fact that in the past, every time you have cause to disagree with what I say, you refer to me as a "silly women", or a "stupid woman", so perhaps YOU should explain why, in the 21st century, YOU feel the need to refer to my gender in your scathing retorts?Not really a woman, 8-) Fortunately for me, you will never have the opportunity to discover whether your fantasy of me being a cross dressing, post op trans-sexual is real. :D

[Robinhood]

Colin Leake - 2012-03-10 7:44 PM

 

P.S. No doubt you all be pleased to learn that the Bear is fully toilet trained though there have been a few raised eyebrows when he strolls into the toilet block. So far the wardens have made no adverse comments!

 

.....so, he doesn't sh*t in the woods, then? ;-)

 

[Guest pelmetman]

donna miller - 2012-03-10 7:45 PM

 

Not really a woman, 8-)

 

 

I hope you're not going to take that lying down Mum 8-)

[Guest pelmetman]

Robinhood - 2012-03-10 7:48 PM

 

Colin Leake - 2012-03-10 7:44 PM

 

P.S. No doubt you all be pleased to learn that the Bear is fully toilet trained though there have been a few raised eyebrows when he strolls into the toilet block. So far the wardens have made no adverse comments!

 

.....so, he doesn't sh*t in the woods, then? ;-)

 

I think your getting confused with Pooh Bear Robin :D

[francisgraham]

donna miller - 2012-03-10 7:45 PM

francisgraham - 2012-03-10 12:11 PM

And why is it me that's started the p*ssing contest and not takeaflight who challenged me. Why aren't you attacking CliveH who wrote a whole post challenging my definition of the word 'turnover'

Because my dear man, you were the one who felt the need to bring up the fact that you can't spend turnover, instead of using your obvious intelligence to realise what was actually meant, and I haven't challenged Clive, (Note, challenged, not ATTACKED) because, as he is an expert in all matters of finance, and I'm not,therefore I would not feel qualified to.

It wasn't me that started the debate about the definition of the word but it's me whom you attack. Why is that?

Where is all this ATTACK coming from?, If you consider everything that anybody says against you as an attack, then you Sir are guilty of ATTACKING nearly everybody on here, please grow up.

His post was unambiguous with no mention of the word 'equivalent' so I'm not sure how you can read his mind. He said that the CC had only spent one year's turnover in the last nine years.

In the same way I used logic to understand that you are probably not as much of an overbearing, pompous, stuck up pillock as you come across as in your posts.

This is what he wrote:"their turnover is 100 million per year, in the last 9 they have spent only 1 years turnover.That to me seems a large spend! If your firm has a turnover of one million per annum I would assume that its net profit is between £50 and £100K.So if you spend the equivalent of one year's turnover from your profits, you're actually spending more than nine years' profits!Now if takeaflight actually meant something very different, perhaps he should have said so?, But it's all pretty irrelevent as I was simply making the point that the CC is a mutal, with no shareholders and if it can't distribute its profits as dividends that it must add them to the balance sheet for future projects.

Sorry, I fell asleep halfway through that.

I would dispute your view about CLs being a franchise in the accepted sense of the word. Are you suggesting that, for every booking that a CL takes, the CC gets a cut? That is not what I have been lead to believe. Perhaps you can enlighten us on this?

Actually, you are correct in that, that was my mistake, it was the Camping and Caravan Club we applied to franchise with, link below.http://www.whichfranchise.com/franchisorPage.cfm?companyID=2405

And finally, can you please drop all this sexist crap about you being 'only a woman'? What on earth does that have do do with anything in the 21st Century? You make such a song and dance about it that I'm beginning to wonder if you really are a woman!

Hardly a song and dance, but hey-ho here we go,It might have something to do with the fact that in the past, every time you have cause to disagree with what I say, you refer to me as a "silly women", or a "stupid woman", so perhaps YOU should explain why, in the 21st century, YOU feel the need to refer to my gender in your scathing retorts?Not really a woman, 8-) Fortunately for me, you will never have the opportunity to discover whether your fantasy of me being a cross dressing, post op trans-sexual is real. :D

Sorry I fell asleep a quarter of the way through yours..............

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz