JoeLeg

DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 25% profit.. ? Yep . > > I've said it before.. > Restaurants are the way to go.. and why some of > the new Venues only have to open a few days a week > or when it suits them... > > DulwichFox And I've said it before, you are clueless on this topic. You really, really don't know what you're talking about. If that figure is correct them they're doing a hell of a lot better than most other restaurants. Industry standard is a net profit of about 10-15%, as I said. You can clear 25%, but it's very hard.

Mick Mac Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I know a restaurant on LL that has overheads of > ?20k per week and seeks to make 25k+ turnover per > week to make a minimum 5k profit. > > Its good if you can manage that target - but the > 20k of costs is a very big risk if it doesn't work > out. its certainly not an easy option. don't get > involved unless you are brave, know what you are > doing and have deep pockets for the start up > costs. ?5k per week? Is that a net or gross figure? Any place that can clear a net 25% profit margin week in week out knows something that a lot of others don't. Unless there are additional costs that come out of that 5 grand, I have to say I'm sceptical of that figure. But then I don't know exactly who it is. It's possible, but unusual. Most places aim for. 10-15% margin. If that's accurate, then congratulations.

Peckhamgatecrasher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Very broadly speaking, someone who is anti western > Middle East. > > If you want to get technical, then descendants of > Shem, Ham, Japeth, ... Ishmael et al. > > Not someone who is anti-Jewish. If you mean > anti-Jewish, then say that. Fair enough. However, isn't there an argument to be made that over time it has become synonymous with solely anti-Jewish sentiment? I think a lot of people would struggle to see a difference. Although you're factually correct, have we perhaps reached the point where it is seen as a default term for hatred of Judaism?

And I agree with Otta. I'm no fan of many policies of the Israeii state, but Israel exists, and that's just a geo-political reality. It's not going away, so why people act like it should/needs to is beyond me. Israel is surrounded by people who literally want to destroy it. Those who oppose its policies on certain areas - and that includes me - need to remember that.

Peckhamgatecrasher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "anti-semitism means an antipathy towards Jews" > > No - it doesn't. How would you define it then? Not trying to start an argument, genuine question.

Grok, I'm not going to bother with you past saying this. You don't know what you're talking about. You just don't. I could throw all the figures at you and demonstrate my point but I doubt you'd listen. I agree that all industries face costs, I agree that everyone faces challenges. Every industry faces its own set of unique challenges, and you've demonstrated quote neatly that you have no understanding of those encountered in hospitality. So no, I don't feel the need to pay your ill-informed, arrogant and offensive opinions any heed, or care that you think all of us are lazy and ripping you off while making huge profits, that you obviously reckon we're lying about. The mark ups are huge (as I say, 3 to 4 times what we pay for it), because it's the only way you can cover costs. Feel free to disagree, but I'll bet you've never been in charge of a restaurant GP or had to make a pub profitable or keep a coffee shop in business.

" Joe.. If Cafes arn't the money making establishments... Why are so many people doing it.. ?? I rest my case... " 'Cafes' casts a wide net. I would say it covers everything from greasy spoons to Starbucks to independent artisan coffee houses, park cafes to semi-restaurant establishments like Blue Mountain. So it's hard to answer without knowing exactly what you mean by cafes. However, I'd say that if we're talking about the massive chains, well they have to be seen for what they are - massive sales engine that uses coffee, cake and sandwiches as it's product. In many ways they are no different to Primark, McDonalds, B&Q or Specsavers. Pricing is determined by suits in head office and the financial picture is seen in national or international terms. The individual store might not make a lot of money, or even a region, but it's possible for other stores or regions to cover it - for example Starbucks in Japan ran at a loss overall for years, but other parts of the world covered it. It's all about turnover. Each location may only make 2% profit margin annually, but when you have thousands of stores across the world you build up a cash reserve and buying power that moves you into a different realm altogether. But the small independents, or small chains, are different. They face the exactly the same market forces as the big boys, but don't have the corporate back up, purchasing power, marketing power or cash reserves. They will make roughly the same profit margins, but whereas Pret A Manger can afford to shut down an under performing location and not go out of business, for an independent that's the end of it. But as I say, they're all faced with the same market forces, labour costs, energy bills, business rates and so on. Essentially my answer to your question is that a lot of people think running a coffee shop or a cafe is easy or romantic or fun. The reality is that 80%-90% of start ups don't last 12 months, usually because people don't realise how much it costs to run a business like that. Cafes - of any type - are no more or less of a money maker than bistro's, burger bars or fine dining. But it's easy to look at them and think they are. I'm probably coming across sounding patronising and I don't mean to - but this is my job and I get quite intense about it. I understand why people think we must all be making money hand over fist - and there are some who rise to the top and coin it. But for the vast majority of us it's much, much harder. I still don't want Londis to go though.

DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Well Lou.. We are short of Eateries on Lordship > Lane. Lol > > ... No the truth is, there are huge profits to be > made in the food sector with restauranteurs being > able > to charge what they like and no end of those > willing to pay the highest prices for it. > > Foxy Hahahahahahaha! Aaaah HAHAHAHA! "Huge profits"? Oh mate, I swear, you need to do a bit of research into profit margins in the catering sector. Seriously. Unless you're talking about the really, really big companies, those margins are razor thin. I doubt you know what the wholesale prices of food are these days - good quality ingredients are not cheap. No one can 'charge what they like'. Believe me when I say if you're paying a lot for your dinner, chances are it cost a lot to buy. To stay in business you have to price a dish at a minimum of three or even four times what the ingredients cost you to be able to pay the overheads; a lot depends on your rent, energy suppliers, laundry bills, supplier costs, staffing costs, how much you hope to make of alcohol sales and so on. I can understand how it looks like many establishments just ask for a lot of money for very little food, but I assure you that the economics behind running a restaurant are terrifying. It's incredibly easy to go bust. All that said I agree entirely that Lordship Lane does not need another coffee shop/deli/self-regarding restaurant etc. Londis is a useful store and should stay.

Grok Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So let me see... the only person on here using > their own name is sue. Yet, because I, and all > othet posters here, joeleg et al, are using forum > names I am the only kne that 'could be anyone'. > Well I never. I'm trying to work out how you think that's an argument, but can't really see it. I'm guessing it's because you're making the point that any of us 'could be anyone' - and that's true of course - but you're the only one openly goading people and insinuating that you know them while they don't know you. Thus the issue of your anonymity comes under scrutiny.

Really, really hope this isn't true - one of my kids does multiple activities up there. It's a great place! Will be asking them.

Grok Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > No, this is nasty: > > Re: Professional dog walkers a menacePosted > by?JoeLeg?29 October, 2015 19:39To judge from > LindyLou's posting history she has mental health > issues, which she previously admitted to. Might > explain her comments. > JoeLeg I absolutely stand by that post. You are quoting massively out of context. I made the point that people should perhaps cut that person some slack as maybe she was not thinking clearly. But you knew that, didn't you?. (Edited because Grok isn't worth getting any more wound up about)

Grok Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Well im sure you do stick to the numbers rule sue. > But when the doors are closed thats when punters > move their chairs and block gangways etc. When? > Hmmm let me see, at your last ivyhouse gig, > remember when you nearly fell off the stage > because you had 'a bug'! > You see, what's particularly nasty about this is that Sue uses her own name and you could find her easily if you wanted to, whereas Grok could be anyone. And Grok is using that to make not-so-subtle accusations about Sue knowing full well they will never have to back it up in person if they don't want to. Not the first time I've seen it on here either. All in all pretty cowardly.

DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > On my last holiday to Turkey.. Thomsons would not > serve me Peanuts onboard the aircraft because > there was > a passenger on board with a nut allergy... This > happened on both outbound / inbound flights.. > > Immagine the same situation on a Bus with much > less space... > > But who cares... who even thinks about it... ?? > > DulwichFox I sort of get what you're saying, but peanut allergies (like most others) tend to require physical contact. Some people can be hyper sensitive (I have a friend who literally cannot be in the same room as a kiwi fruit), but most are able to withstand being near it. For example, one woman at my job will go into anaphylactic shock if she eats pineapple but is perfectly fine to serve the juice. I think it likely anyone that sensitive would be fairly alert to what is being eaten around them. Let's be be honest, the number of such people isn't sufficient to force a legal change for the public, but I would hope that someone eating peanuts (or another allergen) on a bus would stop if asked to do so by a sufferer.

yas Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > but we would've spoken to council about it, > wouldn't we before taking up a petition like that? And the council ignored you? And you didn't learn from that? Surprise surprise. Enjoy your ignorance.

yas Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sorry no offence, but Penguin68 you are not in a > position to speak on council's behalf. Nor do you > know what else we had done before taking up this > petition or what else we are planning to do to > support our case. > > So please kindly let other people make their minds > up as to whether to sign our petition or not! Ok, you know what? I'm backing away from you now. That's just rude. You have no idea what you're talking about.

yas Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > JoeLeg, i am ignoring you as the direction of your > argument is getting personal again! It's not a personal attack to point out how you are making strawman arguments. If you start a debate you need to be willing to have your position challenged. You take it personally, you shouldn't, it's not; simply an observation that you seem to be twisting people's words. If that's not your intention then I apologise, but it's how it looks. > The point i was trying to make is if everyone > stuck to consultation results, then nothing can be > changed! So for instance in place of Forest Hill > Leisure Centre, we would now have a block of flats > and a tiny swimming pool! M and Co would've gone > and its place we would have had Morrisons who had > the licence for that premise. Yes, I absolutely agree. > > Lewisham Council is the correct body to direct our > petition as they provide the funding for the > schools! If your intention is to change things in future, as a direct adjustment of policy, then again I agree. But this kind of thing takes years and isn't going to get Fairlawn reopened next September. Too little too late for that. Seriously, read what people like Penguin68 say - they have it right; unfortunately you don't.

yas Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "I'm beginning to think Yas is just satirising the > whole concept of petitions. I keep getting the > image of Nigel explaining his amplifier goes up to > 11." > > How do you mean? > > So by your argument petition to save lewisham > libraries is a waste of time? You've either not understood the point or are deliberately constructing a strawman argument.

yas Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > council wasn't. it was with the school! we have > suggested fundraising but you can't run a nursery > relying on fundraising year in year out! so there > has to be a sustainable way of maintaining it. So if the council was not involved in the process of Fairlawn, why are you drawing parallels with planning issues that did involve the council? Apples and oranges... This is the point - he council had nothing to do with the decision, so petitioning them was the wrong direction to go in of you were hoping to change the situation.

Question - were the council involved in consultation regarding the closure of Fairlawn nursery?

yas Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > but but if we were the sort to follow your logic, > in place of a lovely leisure centre in forest > hill, we would have a block of flats and a tiny > pool and in place of m & co (a much needed shop > for mothers), we would have a morrisons! > > please go ahead and conduct your evidence tour! :) Well, no, that's apples and oranges. All that's been pointed out to you is that the PRACTICAL effect of your petition will be nothing, because it is both late and misdirected. There is of course, as you point out, ample reason to continue with it to make a point about the issues, and as you say provide moral support, but it will do nothing to change what has happened because the local authority is not involved in the decision. It may however help further down the line when they are considering similar problems at borough level. But I'm not sure what you mean by 'evidence tour'? Once again your the person putting up examples (Leisure Centre, M&Co) which don't seem relevant to your argument. Maybe I'm missing something; can you expand on it? That's what I mean by apples and oranges; I can't see how the action my the local community in those cases is relevant to the situation with Fairlawn, given that it was two different bodies involved. It looks like you're using reductio ad absurbum to disprove something that someone else isn't saying in the first place; no one here has said that local communities shouldn't be politically active - only that it needs to be done at the right time and to the right people, neither of which is the case here. As you say, there are still good reasons for continuing with the petition, but being rude to people who you disagree with is unnecessary.

yas Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > listen, i don't engage in character assainations > in these forums. I have put out a petition there > and was looking to collect signatures. if you > sign, you sign, if you don't, you don't! it is not > nice being called a liar, arrogant when you guys > don't know me at all This is a forum, and on here there's a lot of posts saying stuff I don't agree with, but I respect their opinion to think differently to me (except for SSW!); sometimes I even learn that I was wrong about something. You put up a petition and backed it up with a statistic you claimed was accurate. You were called out on that, and other stuff, and responded very badly. Look back at what you said to Loz, LondonMix and Penguin68. Not nice stuff. So kindly don't claim to be a victim when you didn't have the decency to respect the points made by others, rather you were sarcastic and rude. That's why I pointed out that your PR wasn't going well, because it wasn't! And using inaccurate figures isn't how you win arguments. And looking over your posting history I'd say you do a good job of trolling and character assassination. Well, maybe not a good job, but you have a try... Forceful debate is to be welcomed; you're just sulking because others said you were wrong.

Ok. You've reported me because I pointed out that you lied? You claimed that every school on Lewisham had to make 35% cut, then when pressed to provide proof you admitted it was a rumour? That's a lie, right there. You knew it was a rumour yet knowingly presented it as factual. That would get you on legal trouble if you printed/broadcast it in the media, yet apparently you're being bullied because people are pointing out that you're arrogant, rude and unwilling to hear dissenting opinion? You describe this as character assassination, but that seems to me quite the pot calling the kettle black. Wow, I was only being half-serious when I said I awaited your rage-filled implosion, but you've actually gone and done it. I'm happy to discuss the matter with Admin, and will defend my position.

yas Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rumour has it that it was 35%. Satisfied? :)The > only figure I need to know is that how much the > school is having to contribute into running the > nursery! Ah. So you admit that you heard a rumour which you previously tried to pass off a solid fact. That's called lying. Im really enjoying watching you undermine yourself.

yas Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I only need to know the actual figure of deficit > of maintaining the nursery! School finance is not > my area of expertise, I am afraid! But, but, but...you said... "All the schools in the area had a budget cut by 35% at the beginning of the year" Your exact words. So which is it? Do you understand school financing? Where are you getting these figures from? Can we have a link or at least a reference to follow?

Whatever Yas... Enjoy your arrogance, it obviously keeps you warm at night, but you plainly don't like what LondonMix or Penguin68 had to say so you ignore it and insult them (passive-aggressive sniping is still insulting). Don't come up on a forum and then get annoyed if people point out where you're wrong. I think I'll just sit back and watch you implode with rage now, far more entertaining.