nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Irish bride-to-be pleads with hotel

Logo

A bizarre exchange occurred on air on today's Liveline as an Irish bride-to-be pleaded with her hotel venue to show 'compassion' as she faces a potential €2,000 bill for no-show guests.
https://www.thevow.ie/the-final-say/wedding-talk/irish-bridetobe-pleads-with-hotel-to-meet-halfway-after-guests-choose-gaa-match-over-wedding-36147970.html

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

super_furry

joeysoap wrote: »

A summons to a wedding now generally costs the recipients a cash present, even if they indicate they are not attending. If they do intend to attend I would expect that the cash present is increased. I would have thought €250 was pretty normal now bu maybe I am out on that one. (A first communion is €50+)

I think that's the heart of the matter. Her bill isn't changing, it's the same bill she agreed with the hotel at the start.

Her problem is that she suddenly has 16-18 fewer people giving her cash and now she has to pay for that out of her own pocket.

Logo

jamesbere wrote: »

The bride really dug a hole for herself here. .

I'm honestly sorry for the Irish bride-to-be. Just wondering if it's a straight or gay wedding as there's nothing to indicate either way

valoren

As an aside, can they not do the noble thing and attend the 'Afters reception' at a minimum? I'd imagine a GAA match including extra time would be finished by what, 5pm at the latest?

That way the couple will still get their cards with the cash to pay for the meal (because after all treating your wedding day as a business transaction seems to be the done thing.....oh the Romance!)

ForestFire

valoren wrote: »

She sent out invites to people which they accepted.

Now they decided to play a match instead leaving her out of pocket contractually with the hotel.
That's pretty appalling from those who decided to stay away having accepted an invitation.

There's a reason invitations have RSVP. It let's the couple confirm who will be attending to solidify expected numbers.
They will be attending barring an emergency situation, illness, a death etc. In many cases, couples have to ring people they've sent invites to before hotel deadline for numbers to confirm if they'll be there. People are really that stupid. "Oh...yeah...we'll be going alright..."

A football match is not an emergency. Clearly the bride in this case is quite understandably livid, clearly she is stressed out to the point of threatening a hotel with a smear via Joe Duffy. A self-absorbed bluff which the management tactfully called her on. From their point of view, they agreed a price, they spent from their expenses in lieu of that and don't want to be out of pocket understandably because of a group of ignorant GAA players.

She is not losing money, If they were going as expected she would not save the 2K?? They would eat there meals as expected and no chance to the hotel price

Now they are not going she believes she can "Save" money by getting back the cost of the meals that are not used from the hotel.

Correct me if i'm wrong but they are not just going to the match, they are playing on the team?

I presume most will still give a "gift" as it was a late cancellation?

Boom_Bap

I'd say she will be opening the wedding cards in front of you on arrival to see if your 'gift' is enough

jamesbere

super_furry wrote: »

I think that's the heart of the matter. Her bill isn't changing, it's the same bill she agreed with the hotel at the start.

Her problem is that she suddenly has 16-18 few people giving her cash and no she has to pay for that out of her own pocket.

This is my I don't like weddings, the whole point is to celebrate the union of two people and their love for eachother. But it's seems people are more concerned with how much money they get.

NinjaTruncs

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I thought it was 16 guess. My wife insists she heard 28 not turning up. Maybe girlfriends of the footballers not going too?

Loughc wrote: »

I think the manager said it was 6 couples and 4 individuals that couldn't make it now.

It sounds like it wasn't just the football people who weren't able to make it. She said something along the lines of "along with the other people who let us down during the week(or maybe last minute)" Perhaps the 16 GAA people were just the tipping point.

Edit: 2017 prices are here looks like 61.95 so approximately 32 people weren't coming if the €2,000 cost is accurate.

oppenheimer1

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You guys clearly have not been pricing wedding packages recently. €125 per head is certainly not unheard of, particularly for a wedding of this size. Its mid -to upper end.

But the poster that thought a wedding meal was €25 per person, obviously has never dealt with a hotel for booking it as a venue.

I'm going to go against the common thought in the thread. While legally the hotel has the right to insist on being paid as per the contract agreed, it is rather poor of them to not offer the couple some sort of discount to make up for the fewer guests. I don't think either the hotel or the bride comes out looking great from this.

ForestFire

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

I'm going to go against the common thought in the thread. While legally the hotel has the right to insist on being paid as per the contract agreed, it is rather poor of them to not offer the couple some sort of discount to make up for the fewer guests. I don't think either the hotel or the bride comes out looking great from this.

But i think the Hotels minimum guest requirement is 130 for their venue?

This is the figure they have calculated to give they enough profit to host the event in the first place.

If they reduced from 160 to 145, they maybe the hotel has flexibility.

But since they are already at the minimum number for the Hotel there is nothing more they can do.

Also as they have note, they only got 3 days notice and the food etc is already ordered.

super_furry

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

I'm going to go against the common thought in the thread. While legally the hotel has the right to insist on being paid as per the contract agreed, it is rather poor of them to not offer the couple some sort of discount to make up for the fewer guests. I don't think either the hotel or the bride comes out looking great from this.

Maybe if she went about the right way, but she pulled this stunt three days before the wedding, the hotel have already paid for the food and threatened them with a public shaming on Liveline.

.......

This post has been deleted.

weldoninhio

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

You guys clearly have not been pricing wedding packages recently. €125 per head is certainly not unheard of, particularly for a wedding of this size. Its mid -to upper end.

But the poster that thought a wedding meal was €25 per person, obviously has never dealt with a hotel for booking it as a venue.

I'm going to go against the common thought in the thread. While legally the hotel has the right to insist on being paid as per the contract agreed, it is rather poor of them to not offer the couple some sort of discount to make up for the fewer guests. I don't think either the hotel or the bride comes out looking great from this.

The wedding is tomorrow or Friday. I doubt that the hotel were getting the food/alcohol delivered last minute. Should they take the hit on the extra they'd ordered because the bridzilla only contacted them at the last minute???

ronaneire

darkdubh wrote: »

Where's the lucky man in all this?

Getting ready for a semi-final!

Sofiztikated

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

There's 2 words that don't belong together.

super_furry

ronaneire wrote: »

Getting ready for a semi-final!

Fingers crossed it goes to a replay.

[Deleted User]

It sounds like passive aggression to me.

Bet she wants to absolutely tear a strip off her friends who are putting a game first, but the hotel is an easier target.

Sebastian Dangerfield

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

I'm going to go against the common thought in the thread. While legally the hotel has the right to insist on being paid as per the contract agreed, it is rather poor of them to not offer the couple some sort of discount to make up for the fewer guests. I don't think either the hotel or the bride comes out looking great from this.

From reading the article, the hotel manager said he may have been able to do something if she had called to discuss it, but her threat of "sort it by tomorrow or else" didnt go down well. Rightly so, IMO

oppenheimer1

super_furry wrote: »

Maybe if she went about the right way, but she pulled this stunt three days before the wedding, the hotel have already paid for the food and threatened them with a public shaming on Liveline.

I doubt it has been delivered to the hotel yet. Any supplier to a hotel, if they were worth keeping as a client, would allow the hotel to revise down their numbers as long as the delivery hadn't gone out. I'd be fairly sure the hotel will have a restaurant that they could shift excess from a wedding in anyway (like they normally would). Do you really think a hotel would waste 20 expensive cuts?

The public shaming was the wrong way to go about it, but as I said, the hotel hasn't covered themselves in glory here either.

GhostyMcGhost

....... wrote: »

Actually, 2000 euro divided by 16 comes to a nice tidy 125 euro per head which sounds suspiciously like the cost of the meal (25) plus the missing gift (100).

Christ on a bike, could she really be counting gifts as money lost???

The hotel said it was a premium September date on a Saturday.No way was it 25 a head, would be at least treble that

Logo

Wonder if the happy couple are entitled to a house...

.......

This post has been deleted.

A Shaved Duck?

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

I doubt it has been delivered to the hotel yet. Any supplier to a hotel, if they were worth keeping as a client, would allow the hotel to revise down their numbers as long as the delivery hadn't gone out. I'd be fairly sure the hotel will have a restaurant that they could shift excess from a wedding in anyway (like they normally would). Do you really think a hotel would waste 20 expensive cuts?

The public shaming was the wrong way to go about it, but as I said, the hotel hasn't covered themselves in glory here either.

Did you listen to the show... the hotel manager even after all this wagons messing offered to try and find another date.

They done absolutely nothing wrong and imo tried to help here when she deserves nothing but contempt from them.

redandwhite

I wonder is the groom tempted to go to the match......

Donal55

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

I doubt it has been delivered to the hotel yet. Any supplier to a hotel, if they were worth keeping as a client, would allow the hotel to revise down their numbers as long as the delivery hadn't gone out. I'd be fairly sure the hotel will have a restaurant that they could shift excess from a wedding in anyway (like they normally would). Do you really think a hotel would waste 20 expensive cuts?

The public shaming was the wrong way to go about it, but as I said, the hotel hasn't covered themselves in glory here either.

Hotel did nothing wrong, she made the threats, and if I was attending as a guest I may be having doubts about the standards I expect to get considering her carry on in public.

Cee-Jay-Cee

So what this woman was actually saying is that she was expecting the guests to give a gift which would cover the cost of the meal.

rodders999

ForestFire wrote: »

Not Defending her one bit,

but I presume, in her mind at least, she is loosing money as the 16 guest that are not showing are unlikely to give the "present" in cash to cover her costs.

Not sure about that, there were quite a few guests at my wedding who gave more than some that turned up!

[Deleted User]

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Jesus. That's pretty bad alright.

Neyite

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

I'm going to go against the common thought in the thread. While legally the hotel has the right to insist on being paid as per the contract agreed, it is rather poor of them to not offer the couple some sort of discount to make up for the fewer guests. I don't think either the hotel or the bride comes out looking great from this.

She could have asked instead of threatened.

I was at a wedding years ago during World Cup 94(?). Ireland were playing that day after the meal. The groom lobbied for a big screen to be put in the banquet hall so guests could watch the match and was shot down by his missus.

Cue the entire wedding decamping to the front bar to watch it, leaving only a few elderly guests, the bride and a few others there - maybe 20 out of 150 stayed in the wedding. Of course, once the crowd were parked in the lounge, it was impossible to move them all in and they stayed there for the night. Including the groom. The band played to an empty function room. He probably didn't get the ride that night but I'd say it was worth an unconsummated wedding night. She wanted no football at 'her' wedding, well she got what she wished for. If she had factored in the game, her wedding would have been talked about for years to come as a blast of a day out.

oppenheimer1

A Shaved Duck? wrote: »

Did you listen to the show... the hotel manager even after all this wagons messing offered to try and find another date.

They done absolutely nothing wrong and imo tried to help here when she deserves nothing but contempt from them.

Moving the date, at this late stage, is a non-offer. The hotel is in a position to be flexible, but they have chosen not to be. Yes they are legally entitled to that position but it is fairly lousy.

The radio wasn't the right place to air the grievance though.

[Deleted User]

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Moving the date, at this late stage, is a non-offer. The hotel is in a position to be flexible, but they have chosen not to be. Yes they are legally entitled to that position but it is fairly lousy.

The radio wasn't the right place to air the grievance though.

Which is why she should not have threatened them with a Radio Show.

:pac: