Dispute at Pillings

[MtB]

 

But the person must be capable of working alone, so they can :

 

Cook

Serve

Work the till

Clear the tables

Wash up

 

So they will get all the tips - not just the 'supervisors tips'

 

 

Oh I geddit. THAT sort of 'supervisor'!!!!!

 

MtB

[FredDrift]

Casual Waiting Staff Required:

Pillings Lock Marina Boathouse is looking for Casual waiting staff, we are looking for staff to work in the restaurant for all meal time services, Evenings and weekends. With the possibility of a few regular shifts per week.

Experienced over 18’s preferred but full training will be given
Own transport essential due to our location
We offer competitive rates of pay and Company Profit-share scheme

For more information or to send your CV please email
FAO Martyn Pepper Assistant General Manager

 

 

The company profit share scheme should be good... extra £180k somewhere to share out amongst the team eh?

[MtB]

Makes you wonder which 'company profit' they have in mind sharing.

 

I don't think it comes naturally!

 

 

MtB

[Ally]

Hmmm, I'll be looking for new work soon....

 

Don't think so! Wrong management style for me!!....oh, sorry, 'supervisory'

[Phantasm]

Well PLM/PLT are starting to cut their coat according to their cloth, unfortunately not on the management salary side though.

 

advert on PLM facebook page

 

Pillings Lock Marina

23 April

Pillings Lock Marina- Restaurant Supervisor Required

 

A Vacancy has arisen for an Experienced Restaurant Supervisor at our friendly waterside café/ Restaurant. We are looking for an individual that has excellent customer service skill that is able to work on their own and as part of a team.

Shifts would include Friday and Saturdays 8.30am until 4.30pm and several evening Shifts of 4pm until 11pm s...hifts. We occasionally have special events that require extra working hours.

Rate of Pay £6.50 per hour, approximately 28 - 32 hours per week. We also offer a

Performance related Bonus Scheme.

The successful candidate will require experience in Managing a small team with excellent service standards. Due to the location of our business Own Transport is essential.

What a shame that the management weren't on the Performance Related Bonus Scheme, they would have saved a fortune or at least £180k

[MtB]

What a shame that the management weren't on the Performance Related Bonus Scheme, they would have saved a fortune or at least £180k

 

Au contraire,

 

PL probably considers he has saved the company £180k by stiffing CRT, which makes his £60k a year very good value for money.

 

I still doubt a restaurant supervisor achieving similar savings would be put on £60k though

 

 

MtB

P.S. My point is that its the CRT staff should have been on a performance related bonus. They could have saved the £180k had they had their eye on the business ball.

[Hawkmoth]

It's a sad reflection of the employment market that they'll probably get someone at those 'slave' wages.

One can only hope not.

Bob

[rrt2]

 

 

MtB

P.S. My point is that its the CRT staff should have been on a performance related bonus. They could have saved the £180k had they had their eye on the business ball.

 

We lose sight that most of this loss is down to BWB not CRT.

With CRT being a charity then they are overseen by the charity commission. Without looking deeper into the working of the charity commission I would hazard a guess that a loss of tis magnitude would get a please explain.

[George94]

 

 

 

MtB

P.S. My point is that its the CRT staff should have been on a performance related bonus. They could have saved the £180k had they had their eye on the business ball.

 

We lose sight that most of this loss is down to BWB not CRT.

With CRT being a charity then they are overseen by the charity commission. Without looking deeper into the working of the charity commission I would hazard a guess that a loss of tis magnitude would get a please explain.

 

 

Perhaps it should, but I expect it won't. It's just 0.1% of CART's outgoings, so not really significant. (To CART, that is. To you or me, it's a lot of loot.)

[PaulG]

 

Perhaps it should, but I expect it won't. It's just 0.1% of CART's outgoings, so not really significant. (To CART, that is. To you or me, it's a lot of loot.)

You really can't compare the loss to CRT's total costs.

Its real effect is a lot larger than 0.1% as it is straight off their "bottom line".

[George94]

You really can't compare the loss to CRT's total costs.

Its real effect is a lot larger than 0.1% as it is straight off their "bottom line".

 

It's real effect is 0.1% of total costs, as stated.

 

Of course it comes off the bottom line, like every other cost.

 

But I agree it is a larger proportion of profit (or loss) than it is of total costs. That's fairly obvious, I should have thought.

 

But my point was that as it's only 0.1% of costs, it probably won't stick out like a sore thumb.

[PaulG]

 

Of course it comes off the bottom line, like every other cost.

Sorry, but your thinking is confused.

Not all costs come off the bottom line.

For example, if you buy an item and then sell it at a profit.

Then the net effect of the cost is to increase bottom line.

[George94]

Sorry, but your thinking is confused.

Not all costs come off the bottom line.

For example, if you buy an item and then sell it at a profit.

Then the net effect of the cost is to increase bottom line.

 

No, your thinking is confused.

 

The sale value adds to the bottom line, whilst the cost reduces it. It's the net figure that adds to the bottom line.

 

ALL costs, (other than capital items, which technically aren't a cost in the usual P&L sense) come off the bottom line ultimately, although they might first (as in your example) have come off gross profit.

 

And most capital expenditure will also come off the bottom line over time in the form of depreciation.

 

 

 

Edited April 28, 2014 by George94

[PaulG]

 

No, your thinking is confused.

 

The sale value adds to the bottom line, whilst the cost reduces it. It's the net figure that adds to the bottom line.

 

ALL costs, (other than capital items, which technically aren't a cost in the usual P&L sense) come off the bottom line ultimately, although they might first (as in your example) have come off gross profit.

 

And most capital expenditure will also come off the bottom line over time in the form of depreciation.

 

 

 

If you didn't buy the item at all, you could not sell it. The bottom line would be reduced.

Therefore (as I said), the net effect of the cost is to increase the bottom line.

You can't just lump direct and indirect costs together and pretend they are all the same.

Edited April 28, 2014 by PaulG

[George94]

If you didn't buy the item at all, you could not sell it. The bottom line would be reduced.

Therefore (as I said), the net effect of the cost is to increase the bottom line.

You can't just lump direct and indirect costs together and pretend they are all the same.

 

Paul, please don't waste my time with facile nonsense.

[Dangerous Dave]

Can we please get back to the anti Paul Lillie stuff please..There is still a lot of exposure to cover...£180.000 + worth ..

 

The displeasure of him and team still trading within the canal world community digusts me!!

[StarUKKiwi]

Hmmm, I'll be looking for new work soon....

 

Don't think so! Wrong management style for me!!....oh, sorry, 'supervisory'

Good point - the profits share scheme sounds dodgy

[MtB]

Good point - the profits share scheme sounds dodgy

 

More than dodgy.

 

As the restaurant loses money hand over fist, offering a share of the profit is having a right laugh really isn't it?!

 

What's more likely to happen reading between the lines is the hapless supervisor will get a bill instead of a wage packet at the end of their first month's work, to cover their share of the losses.

 

 

MtB

[Peter X]

 

More than dodgy.

 

As the restaurant loses money hand over fist, offering a share of the profit is having a right laugh really isn't it?!

 

What's more likely to happen reading between the lines is the hapless supervisor will get a bill instead of a wage packet at the end of their first month's work, to cover their share of the losses.

 

 

MtB

 

To be precise, we can't be absolutely certain that the restaurant is losing money without seeing the books, but based on the little we hear, i.e. people observing it to be near-empty at various times, it very probably is losing a lot.

 

I've always understood that in any employee profit-sharing scheme, if the business makes a loss in a particular period then the scheme pays nothing out and the loss comes from the business's bank account or loans. But then I guess you're thinking that this is Pillings Lock we're talking about.

 

My guess is that if PLM goes on as it is, the restaurant will steadily leak money until it's closed to stem the losses. Meanwhile there will be enough income from mooring fees to cover marina running costs, plus, by whatever circuitous financial route is now used, paying an interest-only mortgage (and NAA fees if CRT bothers to force them), so PLM can survive but without giving Mr Steadman much of a return on his investment. Their strategy seems to be to attract moorers by offering cheap rates; I think a typical fee of £1299 for a narrowboat was mentioned? At that price I suppose some people will bite, especially if they are unaware of the history, and PL learns to restrain himself from antagonising people.

 

The vague estimates I'm using here excluding the café, and of course it's all guesswork, are:

Moorings: 240 boats at an average of £1300 = 312,000

Wages (inc. tax & NI): PL 60,000 plus maybe 2 low-paid minions, total 100,000

Mortgage: 5% interest on 2,000,000 = 100,000

VAT is one sixth of mooring fees, so 52,000

NAA (optional at Pillings Lock) 31,000

For simplicity I've assumed that they break even on extras such as pump out, electricity etc.

There may also be some income from the flat and the workshop.

Debating the above figures could of course keep this topic going for a while...

 

So a profit of perhaps 29,000, very much dependent on the numbers of boats; I've assumed that on average 40 of the 280 berths will be vacant. Drive 30 of those 240 away and the marina is losing money.

Conclusion for PL: Make an effort to be nice to people all the time, and if the café can't make money adapt or close it PDQ.

[Alan de Enfield]

You have forgotten a few costs - some more :

 

Business rates

Council Tax (on the 'flat')

Electricity / Oil / Gas

Water

Corporation Tax

Bin emptying ( £15 per bin per week)

Septic tank emptying

Cleaning / Toilet supplies

Marina Maintenance

Building Maintenance

Bank Charges

Buildings Insurance

Contents Insurance

Employers Insurance

3rd Party In insurance

Telephone

Post

Stationary

Advertising

Accountancy fees

[Peter X]

Well yes Alan, I was aiming for the big picture and ignoring a lot of smaller costs, but some of those you mention are going to be significant and it all adds up. Business Rates is probably the big one out of your list?

 

As has been frequently pointed out, the well run marinas appear to be doing OK, and even with their lower mooring fees and the dead weight of the overpaid PL, my gut feeling is that if the café stops losing money, PLM may be able to break even. I agree with Dangerous Dave that it's a shame that they are still in business, but if the number of boaters putting money in there does decline, I'm optimistic that at least the point may be reached where Mr Steadman realises it's in his interest to elbow PL aside. It would be a small victory for common sense.

[Ally]

The staffing costs are underestimated PeterX, there are quite a lot of staff there, at least 3 'management', cleaners, cafe staff, general gofurs, some pl relatives I believe, certainly more than just a couple of minions. The flat is well let usually, via late rooms. I would doubt he would close the cafe regardless of profit or loss, its his pride and joy. If it were to close, it would only be during the depths of winter when the ladies that lunch don't come so often, or perhaps winter evenings.

[Phantasm]

 

To be precise, we can't be absolutely certain that the restaurant is losing money without seeing the books, but based on the little we hear, i.e. people observing it to be near-empty at various times, it very probably is losing a lot.

 

The café has always been slow in the winter and early spring, so I think they make up the income in the summer when it is usually rammed on nice days.

[carpet wallah]

Well yes Alan, I was aiming for the big picture and ignoring a lot of smaller costs, but some of those you mention are going to be significant and it all adds up. Business Rates is probably the big one out of your list?

 

Business Rates - About £25k - not exactly covered by the Petty Cash methinks

[MtB]

Well yes Alan, I was aiming for the big picture and ignoring a lot of smaller costs, but some of those you mention are going to be significant and it all adds up. Business Rates is probably the big one out of your list?

 

As has been frequently pointed out, the well run marinas appear to be doing OK, and even with their lower mooring fees and the dead weight of the overpaid PL, my gut feeling is that if the café stops losing money, PLM may be able to break even. I agree with Dangerous Dave that it's a shame that they are still in business, but if the number of boaters putting money in there does decline, I'm optimistic that at least the point may be reached where Mr Steadman realises it's in his interest to elbow PL aside. It would be a small victory for common sense.

 

 

1) When I last rented a business premises (10,000sq ft shop) the Business Rates exceeded my rent.

 

2) I'm sure Mr Steadman figured this out long ago, therefor there must be a concealed reason we can only guess at for him keeping PL in ungainful employment.

 

MtB