Good points. I'm talking about strict food costs on the plate. If you take into account related food costs such as shrinkage, spoilage, waste, theft, then yes, the cost figure is higher. It helps to define terms, right?mellowyellow wrote:mister moose your knowledge on this subject is not so goo just as mine for cutting and pasting but let me teach you a LITTLE food cost lesson standard national number for food cost is 33% so if a burger cost $100 the establishment should be spending $33 ok now a lower food cost would be better cause it helps with margins increasing profit now controling food cost is training, recipes, management and contoling profit loss ok now killington probably does run a terrible food cost no recipes, no management and minimal training i mean punch in here dont cut any fingers off ok now lets take into the fact of theft at killington you think those foriegn kids care about taking home some extra burgers bun ect. no they all bring bags in and they steal so that is the a good reason for a high food cost ok
I'm not without experience in the field. National average includes dinner. Killington is lunch. Different percentage for lunch, no? Wouldn't you agree the menu items on Killington's menu should* beat the national average handily? (*Assuming halfway decent management as you point out)