large booking at restaurant- how to split the bill?

coolcait

Homeownertobe wrote: »

I was referring to the people on this thread who said they would go to an expensive restaurant and just order soup because they didn't want to pay for a full meal, but they still wanted the experience.

Why is that a problem, if they pay for the full amount - plus tip - that they have consumed to have that experience?

Homeownertobe

duchy wrote: »

What complete and utter rubbish !
Ever eaten at the Ivy ? (I assume that fits your criteria of a good/expensive restaurant). It's full of real and supposed celebrities -many of whom have to keep their weight down (telly adds pounds) or have bodyimage issues. Plenty of these people won't have more than just the soup -or just a starter. No-one bats an eyelid as they tuck into their own overpriced but rather nice meal.

If you are embarrassed - it says far more about you and your lack of social confidence than it does about the person who has the confidence to order exactly what they want to eat -whether that is one course or four or five. In fact the higher class the restaurant the more accustomed they are to "eccentric " ordering. The rich and successful order exactly what they want and don't care what the "little people" think be that the staff of the establishment or other customers.

Oh my, aren't you angry? Personal comments and insults - what a happy person you appear to be.

As for your barbs about the Ivy, you're about a decade out with your cultural references. I'd have been more impressed if you'd talked about the Chiltern Firehouse, but even then, you'd be about 18 months late for that one.:rotfl:

Homeownertobe

coolcait wrote: »

Why is that a problem, if they pay for the full amount - plus tip - that they have consumed to have that experience?

It's not the done thing. And it is embarrassing when they're nursing their bowl of soup for two hours - and miserable with it too - while everyone else is trying to enjoy their food.

Real life example for you - for a friend's birthday last month five of us treated her to the tasting menu at a very nice restaurant, with significant cost. Another friend insisted on coming (she wasn't originally invited due to the cost) but didn't want to try the tasting menu and only tried to change that on the day when she arrived. That kind of behaviour is not acceptable. Or do you think it is?

duchy

I think it depends on your personal circumstances.
Plenty of people eat out with co-workers or employees of their clients when attending conferences or training courses. I belong to a group that is spread countrywide (with a smattering of international members) and when we get together for events often dinner before or after the event will be a random mix of a complete cross section of women right across the soco-economic spectrum . Some are very comfortably off others scrimp to attend these events so the comfort level for meal affordability varies.
I'd rather someone had a starter and enjoyed the social interaction than sat alone in their hotel room with a sandwich because they couldn't afford three courses. Ideally we try and plan these meals somewhere with a decent set menu of two courses so the third course is an optional extra and let people know ahead of time so people can plan and budget but it isn't always possible or practical - or if a meal is just spontaneous.

I don't think the problem is usually with people in your close social circle or family but more when it is acquaintances dining together.

BarryBlue wrote: »

I thought that was an interesting comment. Certainly whenever we visit a restaurant we go with friends if it's not just the two of us. I would have no desire to share a dining experience with people who were not friends. On that basis we always just divide the bill between the number of people, usually 4 or sometimes 6. We generally have similarly priced meals anyway and if someone has had something costing an extra quid or two - so what! If there were people who took advantage we wouldn't be dining with them at all. We would not expect to visit a restaurant with anyone who couldn't afford to eat there.

This topic has been discussed several times before, of course, and it always goes the same way. It seems to me that it goes down gender lines. The ones who whip out their calculators are normally women. Blokes out for a curry just chuck money on the table and never worry about it. Couples who know each other as friends surely cannot seriously sit there working everything out to the penny. Life's too short for that!;)

duchy

Homeownertobe wrote: »

Oh my, aren't you angry? Personal comments and insults - what a happy person you appear to be.

As for your barbs about the Ivy, you're about a decade out with your cultural references. I'd have been more impressed if you'd talked about the Chiltern Firehouse, but even then, you'd be about 18 months late for that one.:rotfl:

I'm not angry- I'm more amused by your posturing and desperation to impress. Sadly no-one is impressed though.

Taking the pee out of person one because they cite prawns and steak as a meal ........ Read it back -perhaps you'll understand why I'm seeing you as shallow and immature.

Homeownertobe

duchy wrote: »

I'm not angry- I'm more amused by your posturing and desperation to impress. Sadly no-one is impressed though.

Do you often laugh at things that don't exist?;)

coolcait

Homeownertobe wrote: »

It's not the done thing.

Why do you say that?

And it is embarrassing

Why?

when they're nursing their bowl of soup for two hours - and miserable with it too - while everyone else is trying to enjoy their food.

Why do you say that? My soup-preferring friends eat at a normal pace, and are not miserable. Those of us who are sharing their company - but not their menu choices - are enjoying out food.

Real life example for you - for a friend's birthday last month five of us treated her to the tasting menu at a very nice restaurant, with significant cost. Another friend insisted on coming (she wasn't originally invited due to the cost) but didn't want to try the tasting menu and only tried to change that on the day when she arrived. That kind of behaviour is not acceptable. Or do you think it is?

That may be something which has recently happened in your own life, but it is not an example of the situation being discussed

All personal anecdotes aside, do you think that it is right that people should pay for what they have had to eat and drink, on the occasions that they ate and drank?

moneyistooshorttomention

missbiggles1 wrote: »

If somebody's that skint, why would they be going out for a meal in the first place?

:wall::whistle::wall: Because they want a social life - just as other people do.

moneyistooshorttomention

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

If there was someone in the group who genuinely couldn't afford it, then tbh, the rest of us would pay for theirs. I have paid for my unemployed friend before now.

Personally - I'd find that rather humiliating - ie as if I couldnt pay my way. I'd rather pay for what I've had - no more/no less and then I have paid my way.

I can only recall one time where the group (ie more of an interest group than a friendship group) clubbed together and paid for my meal for me. That was when I turned up at a meeting having been told that day that I was going to be redundant from my job - to which they all sympathised and deliberately arranged a meal after the meeting and insisted on paying for mine. Now that gesture of solidarity/support was really appreciated - as they'd done the whole meal out arrangement specially to show support for me and it was a nice thought.

I'd feel very different in the setting of a purely social meal out that had been arranged anyway iyswim.

74jax

I have just been invited to a friend's birthday meal. New restaurant to me - she asked if I wanted to join her and friends at Turtle Bay, I thought it was a holiday destination....... So I've been online, looked at the menu to see the food choices, drooled a little, and already planned what I'll eat (well I have quite a few options..) and will just pay for my own meal and drinks - roughly, not to the penny, to include a small tip.