large booking at restaurant- how to split the bill?

Domayne

duchy wrote: »

Or for them it's all about the food and the conversation is a far more minor part of their experience ?

You can ask ten people what they enjoyed most about a night out , they may have experienced the same menu and the same company but you're still likely to get ten different answers.

Maybe. But that doesn't explain why THEY can't have a starter/dessert just because your not having one, especially if they are there for the food?
Is it an insecurity thing of...Are they going to be looking at me while I'm eating? Or r DON'T TALK I'M EATING!
In that case why even ask someone to go out with you, just go and eat by yourself?

SingleSue

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

If I go to a restaurant to eat, it's more about the food than the company. I can socialise at home or in a pub.

I go out to eat on my own sometimes.

So therefore if someone is not enjoying the experience of eating, it spoils my enjoyment too. My having to scrimp because you've only got a fiver isn't my idea of fun, because I feel I can't have what I want if you are sitting there with a glum look and an empty plate. I'd rather pay for you to enjoy yourself or not go at all and socialise at home.

Just mho.

Mine is for the socialising and the food....my cooking is ok but it's nice to have a treat sometimes.

If I go out and money is a little tight, it wouldn't bother me if the other person/people were having the more expensive options. It was my choice to go out after all and I wouldn't tell them I am having the cheaper and/or smaller option because of money, the explanation would be that I can no longer eat all the items I want but boy am I going to enjoy what I am able to.

As I have said before, I am a good hider of emotions. I would not be sat there glum faced ruining the experience for others, I would be joining in, laughing, joking and taking a full part in the evening (apart from having 3 courses, couldn't do it even if I was a lottery winner!)

I suppose in a way it's a plus as I would be a good date for someone...my meal wouldn't cost very much because I can't eat very much and I will only have an orange squash :rotfl:

SingleSue

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

As long as they are having what they want and are enjoying it, fine. It's people not having what they want that puts a damper on things.

I do enjoy peoples' company, but don't need to go to a restaurant to do so, the same as you don't need to go to the zoo or to watch a film. I can also enjoy their company whilst eating, but it will spoil my experience if they are not having what they want.

Let's get this straight, I'm not talking about people who only want a small portion, but people who only have the cheapest because they can't afford any more, even though they would like to eat more. In that case, I wish they'd have told me they couldn't afford it before we went, then we could have sorted something out, other than them depriving themselves.

I would love to have more, generally I want more but unfortunately, know it would be a very bad move to have more/a certain dish.

Can't say I am enjoying this getting older thing, why can't it be like the old days where I could have what I wanted, in the quantities I wanted and not suffer any problems afterwards. It was so much more fun back then...if more expensive :rotfl:

silvercar

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

Let's get this straight, I'm not talking about people who only want a small portion, but people who only have the cheapest because they can't afford any more, even though they would like to eat more. In that case, I wish they'd have told me they couldn't afford it before we went, then we could have sorted something out, other than them depriving themselves.

I agree with you. It is about trying to have an enjoyable experience for everyone.

onlyroz

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

If I go to a restaurant to eat, it's more about the food than the company. I can socialise at home or in a pub.

I go out to eat on my own sometimes.

So therefore if someone is not enjoying the experience of eating, it spoils my enjoyment too. My having to scrimp because you've only got a fiver isn't my idea of fun, because I feel I can't have what I want if you are sitting there with a glum look and an empty plate. I'd rather pay for you to enjoy yourself or not go at all and socialise at home.

Just mho.

For me it's about the food *and* the company. I sometimes go out to lunch on my own because I like the food. I sometimes go out to lunch with people and don't eat anything because I like the company. Sometimes it's both. It doesn't have to be one or the other.


As for people sitting there "glumly" with an empty plate - yes I agree it would be off-putting if it was clear that my dining companion was miserable. However, there are also circumstances where the person with the empty plate is perfectly content - but some people on this thread just can't get their head round this. Perhaps they just don't want that particular course and are waiting for the next one. Perhaps they're about to go on a night-shift and as far as their body-clock is concerned it's breakfast time. Perhaps they're just stopping by for a short while because they've arranged to go on somewhere else. Or perhaps there is a medical issue that reduces their appetite. But I totally dispute that "empty plate == miserable".


If you're uncomfortable dining with somebody who is eating less than you then that says more about you than about the other person. (P.S. "you" is not necessarily s-d-w, but other posters who have said things like this).

holidaysforme

This thread has reminded me of a friend who used to come out with us a few years ago. There were a group of us who used to go out every 4-6 weeks for a meal,- something fairly casual say Cafe Rouge Wagamama or a local Indian or Italian.

There was one particular women that would only ever order one course( nothing to do with not being able to afford to spend more)

she would spend the whole evening pushing the food around her plate, and could make a small glass of wine last a couple of hours.
Most of us would have a couple of courses,- occasionally some would have three.

I think this sort of blew her mind to be honest:). She never really seemed to enjoy the food very much, and looking back I think she had control issues around eating and drinking.

As this went on for a long time, we just stopped inviting her out to any social occasions that involved eating, and would include her in cinema/ theatre trips instead.
Our meals out were much more relaxing from then on.

Spendless

I am meeting a friend tonight for a meal. Nothing special just a pub meal and a long overdue catch up with her. I have a 2for1 voucher. The voucher is mine and I didn't get it for free. It came in a booklet of local vouchers that costs £20 that I buy every year. I will be sharing the voucher and splitting the cost of the meal to pay for 50/50.

I know a lot has been made of alcohol verses those that drink soft drinks. As I'm in two minds about whether to drive tonight or not though, I decided to look up the drinks menu. Their glass of coke costs £1.75 the cheapest glass of wine £2.05, so not a great deal of price difference. Either drink would take me the same amount of time to finish as I will sip the wine but take more quantity of coke. Looking at the price of a bottle of wine instead, the cheapest is £5.95 or if we split £3 each. 1/2 a bottle of wine will certainly last me the duration of the time we are out, 1 glass of coke probably wont making drinking the wine a cheaper option. Tap water is a different matter.

mumps

Spendless wrote: »

I am meeting a friend tonight for a meal. Nothing special just a pub meal and a long overdue catch up with her. I have a 2for1 voucher. The voucher is mine and I didn't get it for free. It came in a booklet of local vouchers that costs £20 that I buy every year. I will be sharing the voucher and splitting the cost of the meal to pay for 50/50.

I know a lot has been made of alcohol verses those that drink soft drinks. As I'm in two minds about whether to drive tonight or not though, I decided to look up the drinks menu. Their glass of coke costs £1.75 the cheapest glass of wine £2.05, so not a great deal of price difference. Either drink would take me the same amount of time to finish as I will sip the wine but take more quantity of coke. Looking at the price of a bottle of wine instead, the cheapest is £5.95 or if we split £3 each. 1/2 a bottle of wine will certainly last me the duration of the time we are out, 1 glass of coke probably wont making drinking the wine a cheaper option. Tap water is a different matter.

I don't drink alcohol and neither does my husband, one small drink is all I would have and I find that people who drink alcohol have more than one drink, maybe its just the people I know but I drink because I'm thirsty but people who drink alcohol drink because they like the taste/effect of alcohol. So if we go out with another couple we will have two soft drinks they will often have a beer for him and maybe a wine or something else for her and then wine with the meal and maybe a brandy afterwards. At some places, especially some of the chains, you can have free top ups of soft drinks so even if you want more than one drink you only pay for the one. Even if alcohol drinkers only have one because they are driving they seem to have an alcoholic drink and a soft drink.

After 40 odd years of going out to meals with people who drink alcohol I think I have done alot of subsidising! I don't mind and have never moaned about it but I do notice that some people take the mick e.g. some people I know would go up to the bar and pay for the brandy and some would just add it to the bill and then expect it to be split. We know one couple who will order another drink at the end of the meal, just before the bill, so they can take it through to the lounge where we might sit and have a chat afterwards where other couples wouldn't dream of doing that. I know which one I think is taking the mick.

onlyroz

The extortionate cost of soft drinks in pubs and restaurants could be the subject of an entirely new thread.


However, I have observed that the people who drink soft drinks do tend to drink fewer of them than people who drink alcoholic drinks.

Feral_Moon

Spendless wrote: »

I am meeting a friend tonight for a meal. Nothing special just a pub meal and a long overdue catch up with her. I have a 2for1 voucher. The voucher is mine and I didn't get it for free. It came in a booklet of local vouchers that costs £20 that I buy every year. I will be sharing the voucher and splitting the cost of the meal to pay for 50/50.

I know a lot has been made of alcohol verses those that drink soft drinks. As I'm in two minds about whether to drive tonight or not though, I decided to look up the drinks menu. Their glass of coke costs £1.75 the cheapest glass of wine £2.05, so not a great deal of price difference. Either drink would take me the same amount of time to finish as I will sip the wine but take more quantity of coke. Looking at the price of a bottle of wine instead, the cheapest is £5.95 or if we split £3 each. 1/2 a bottle of wine will certainly last me the duration of the time we are out, 1 glass of coke probably wont making drinking the wine a cheaper option. Tap water is a different matter.

I'd love to know where you're going that sells a whole bottle of wine for £5.95 :eek:

I often pay more for just one glass in a restaurant and a bottle is usually upwards of £15 just for the standard house wine! I dread to think what it must taste like. That's the sort of price I'd usually expect to pay in a supermarket, certainly not in a bar/restaurant.