gnvqsos Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 Like any business, I guess they want the money. So the more that sign on the dotted line and give their bank details then the better. TO be honest the obese are far more likely to quit, which means no wear and tear on machines, no demand for class etc.... the ones who turn up and use the place cause wear and tear on equipment, demand classes (which means an instructor is needed to take the class - more outgoings) You probably find most gyms prefer the ones who pay for 12 months, but quit after 3 weeks Those treadmills must take more hammer than Peter Stringfellows' nightclubs.Is it harder for the instructors to motivate the larger client? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxmaximus Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 Like any business, I guess they want the money. So the more that sign on the dotted line and give their bank details then the better. TO be honest the obese are far more likely to quit, which means no wear and tear on machines, no demand for class etc.... the ones who turn up and use the place cause wear and tear on equipment, demand classes (which means an instructor is needed to take the class - more outgoings) You probably find most gyms prefer the ones who pay for 12 months, but quit after 3 weeks That’s not a very good advert for the gym in your link, why would anyone pay for a service knowing that the service provider would prefer them to quit. And if the tax payer is going to fund such a service it should obviously be one that is already subsidised by the tax payer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister M Posted January 3, 2013 Author Share Posted January 3, 2013 local councils are, surely, only responsible for administering Housing Benefits and Council Tax Benefit, so I'm not sure how the withdrawal of those benefits can be forced onto the recipients for "not attending a gym". eg. Mr E is a single father who receives housing benefit and council tax because he is in a low paid job. In between going to work and running his home/ looking after his young children, where does he find the time for attending the gym? From April they will also have the responsibility for public health, though Westminster Council have interperted this as a green light to micro manage people's lives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shef_Fitness Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 That’s not a very good advert for the gym in your link, why would anyone pay for a service knowing that the service provider would prefer them to quit. And if the tax payer is going to fund such a service it should obviously be one that is already subsidised by the tax payer. I wasn't talking about my own classes as my sessions are pay as you train. This means people can give me the 2 fingers and walk away if they don't get the service they expect. But my point is this, if public money is to be made available then it should go to all the gyms (private ones included). Yes, many will quit, but in my opinion the council gyms are giving themselves an advantage over private ones by gaining access to this taxpayer money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnvqsos Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 I wasn't talking about my own classes as my sessions are pay as you train. This means people can give me the 2 fingers and walk away if they don't get the service they expect. But my point is this, if public money is to be made available then it should go to all the gyms (private ones included). Yes, many will quit, but in my opinion the council gyms are giving themselves an advantage over private ones by gaining access to this taxpayer money. If you remove peoples fingers when they leave your retention rates must be good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxmaximus Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 I wasn't talking about my own classes as my sessions are pay as you train. This means people can give me the 2 fingers and walk away if they don't get the service they expect. But my point is this, if public money is to be made available then it should go to all the gyms (private ones included). Yes, many will quit, but in my opinion the council gyms are giving themselves an advantage over private ones by gaining access to this taxpayer money. Which would mean they need less subsidies from council tax payers, it would be daft subsidising a council run facility whilst paying for the unemployed to use a private gym. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister M Posted January 3, 2013 Author Share Posted January 3, 2013 As satirical as the second one is it would be better for the poor if it came true. At the moment middle class people set them better examples and middle class doctors advise them but they just eat takeaways and smoke instead. It sounds like you'd prefer it if the headlines in the first link weren't satirical but were in fact true. ---------- Post added 03-01-2013 at 22:57 ---------- Which would mean they need less subsidies from council tax payers, it would be daft subsidising a council run facility whilst paying for the unemployed to use a private gym. Won't a lot of gyms close due to the austerity cuts anyway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shef_Fitness Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 If you remove peoples fingers when they leave your retention rates must be good. ha ha, nice one. My only point is that this is councils trying to get more money from the taxpayer in the disguise that it is meant to do something good. I think the numbers are dropping and to raise money have a new initiative which forces obese people to attend they council run gyms. This gets taxpayers money going into their facilities My point is, if money is sloshing around then by rights all the gyms should have this money. Even if 95% of the obese quit within 4 weeks, then all the gyms have access to 12 months worth of gym fees. Again it raises the question of how paying members will react but thats another debate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 .....And if the gym classes interfere with time spent looking for work.... They open after 1700 and before 0900. I hate the idea personally. I'd like to say that it's well meaning, but it doesn't come across like that. If they wanted to target overweight people why not tax fatty foods; or fine companies that lie on their packages about the fat, sugar and salt content of their product? Because a council has no powers to do those things. ---------- Post added 03-01-2013 at 23:02 ---------- A high percentage of benefits claimants have never worked, and the ones that did work tend to get back in employment sooner rather than later What % is that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Prime Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 It sounds like you'd prefer it if the headlines in the first link weren't satirical but were in fact true. ---------- Post added 03-01-2013 at 22:57 ---------- Won't a lot of gyms close due to the austerity cuts anyway Well I'd have no objections to the 5% underclass Wayne and Waynettas, those sad relics from the Victorian period who've never changed being dead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.