Shhh
Hush, you! Don't tell them that! Cloud and virtualization were supposed to be used for their inherent efficiency and in case of virtualization, the idea was to consolidate hardware so much that you'd have needed less of it. Well, that's only true if you can eliminate overhead.
If your staff never cared about using available resources effectively, switching to VMs won't change that.
Worse still, they will simply spin up new VM instances at a whim, effectively raising your costs, not lowering them.
If you already had good sysadmins, your infrastructure was already running at high efficiency, and switching to virtualized workloads would only add overhead, licensing costs, require retraining and possibly hiring, all of which costs money.
And at the end, your bare metal is running the same workload as before (equivalent of x servers) plus hypervisors (equivalent of y servers) plus middleware (equivalent of z servers) plus you have to account for overhead (n>100%) as it invariably turns out to be not as effective as before. For positive values of x, y and z, n×(x+y+z) > x.
That's something that people making purchasing decisions fail to understand, for some reason believing that new x is smaller than old x, y and z is negative and overhead doesn't exist.