Enterprise and Punch have told the anti-pubco Fair Pint campaign they will not meet the group before the Parliamentary inquiry into pub companies, the MA can reveal.
In a letter to the campaign group, Enterprise chief executive Ted Tuppen said: "We have recently written to [Liberal Democrat MP] Tim Farron, in his capacity as chair of the launch of the Fair Pint campaign, expressing our deep concern at the irresponsible, prejudiced and ill informed nature of many of his pronouncements about pub companies, some of his comments verging on the defamatory.
"Adopting such a stance does not imply a willingness to make a balanced assessment of the relationship between pubs and pub companies.
"Clearly, I have to ask myself whether a meeting with your Steering Group would add value to the debate and, given the positions seemingly adopted by those who appear to represent your campaign, I regret that I see little point.
"I recognise that these are very difficult times for the licensed trade an
54 Posts(s) found for this thread: Now displaying page 5 of 6
| Author Name | Opinion | Reply |
|---|---|---|
George Baker 08/08/2008 13:31:05![]() |
Enterprise and Punch won't meet Fair Pint Well said Eddie. You're right that the only thing that has prevented the whole rotten house of cards from collapsing has been a ready supply of 'mugs' to take these things on under such misrepresentation and false hope. But, times are changing. Every pub is full of talk about how so many pubs are closing down, how often the tenant changes, how often keys are handed back in. Customers are using phrases like "there's no way it can pay", "you've only got a chance if you're free to buy your beer from wherever". And so the cat is out of the bag. When the real estate returns and the wholesale profits dry up because the line of mugs dries up, we might then see some salvation. There's nothing wrong with the idea of charging (reasonable)rent, nor making (reasonable) wholesale profits. It's when both become obscene driven by corporate greed the outcome is unsustainable. This post replies to eddie robinson > Enterprise and Punch won't meet Fair Pint |
|
eddie robinson 08/08/2008 13:43:15![]() |
Enterprise and Punch won't meet Fair Pint I would just say that although I support Fairpints aims, I am not a member. We are all entitled to our own opinions and it's my view that this is not a time for moderation. It would be unfair therefore to tar Fairpint with the kind of brush I advocate using or indeed stuffing up the pubcos corporate rear-ends. There is more than enough proof of the pubcos 'ethics' and dereliction of their duty of care that they now represent an unmissable target. Fairpint isn't the only game in town and as much as I respect them and their initiatives, I prefer a more aggressive approach. If I came home and sone scumbag was assaulting my wife, I really don't think I'd sit down for a discussion with him. This post replies to George Baker > Enterprise and Punch won't meet Fair Pint |
|
Gilbert Bank 08/08/2008 16:23:30![]() |
Enterprise and Punch won't meet Fair Pint Whilst I agree with the sentiment about pubcos, I do feel we need to box clever. FP, I respectfully suggest, may do well to add the financial editors of all the red and black tops to their mail list and pass on ad nauseum all the detail that is presented hear as common knowledge to all of us, but none of them have a clue what we are bleating about because all they see is trends and bottom lines. Throw enough and some will stick and questions will begin to be asked and the house built on sand and empty promises will begin to reveal itself. This post replies to this thread |
|
Gilbert Bank 08/08/2008 16:30:26![]() |
Enterprise and Punch won't meet Fair Pint FP How about an in depth survey of our nations leased/tenanted pubs with one question: How many landlords/tenants/temp managers has your pub had in the last 5 years? How hard is that to answer? How revealing? My last pub had 8 in 6 years and my current 7 in 6 years. Even the temp managers didn't want to stay! Two in six months. This post replies to Gilbert Bank > Enterprise and Punch won't meet Fair Pint |
|
Nigel Wakefield 08/08/2008 16:28:47![]() |
Enterprise and Punch won't meet Fair Pint The biggest problem that Fair Pint is to have actual factual proof or find genuine misuse of directives, law or anything similar. These people and companies are devious, threatening and are constantly just within the law, everyone from licensees to Institutions are terrified of being sued by these organisations or losing their financial backing depending on their involvement, to coin a phrase a lot are bought and paid for. It only needs one or two cracks and the house may well come down, but we will only get the truth at the moment by asking very pointed questions. The staff in one particular company are getting very edgy and would like to get their voices heard before anything nasty happens, my advice is that we need your information in the Public Domain as soon as possible. This post replies to edward carpenter > Enterprise and Punch won't meet Fair Pint |
|
David Pott 08/08/2008 17:02:26![]() |
Enterprise and Punch won't meet Fair Pint I am the seventh landlord of my pub since it was built nearly 150 years ago in the mid 1860s. This post replies to Gilbert Bank > Enterprise and Punch won't meet Fair Pint |
|
J Mark Dodds 08/08/2008 17:40:46![]() |
Enterprise and Punch won't meet Fair Pint David Pott you are at the pinnacle of a lasting tradition under threat from large scale mis management designed to return the maximum profit short term without any regard to sustaining business for future profit. Fair Pint didn't really expect any of the PubCos to be bothered to meet because there's no mileage in their meeting anyone unless they want to take advice on how to run a PubCo properly. We invited PuBcos to meet because people who actually run pubs asked us to invite them. And clearly that's not what they are interested in because running a PubCo properly will not return the maximum against the minimum investment they have been prepepared to put in up to now. If they were to meet Fair Pint we would be telling them (it's not complicated) to do what they SAY they do instead of pretending to do it. NOT VERY SEXY because that involves tenants being able to make a living and those historical profits the PubCos make are to do with ripping the profit away from tenants and putting it all into shareholders and C.E.O's pockets. So what's been going on so far with their replies is hardly a surprise. What is fascinating about what's been going on recently is how imperious and aloof PubCos remain, as ROME is burns all around, while operators out there are prepared to help. Running a PubCo properly is NOT rocket science, it involves supporting tenants properly and giving them a cut of what is rightfully their cake. Making a PubCo WORK the way they have been doing is all about ducking and diving, doing big deals in back rooms with people who are not operators, shaving margins, maxmimising discounts and not passing them on and generally making hay while the sun shines. The sun set about this time five years ago. They got a breather from TISC. The PubCos eternal problem is that they are NOT operators. They are suits. Boys playing with accountant's toys. The more they have earned the more proof they have had that they are right. edited by: J Mark Dodds at: 08/08/2008 17:41:11 This post replies to David Pott > Enterprise and Punch won't meet Fair Pint |
|
martin kay 08/08/2008 18:45:18![]() |
Enterprise and Punch won't meet Fair Pint Just a query about the expression "they are suits". Is this a generic descripion that has an undertone? Simply because it all seems pretty casual dress nowadays. This post replies to J Mark Dodds > Enterprise and Punch won't meet Fair Pint |
|
Nigel Wakefield 08/08/2008 17:56:52![]() |
Enterprise and Punch won't meet Fair Pint Gilbert I had some figures passed to me recently and supposedly one company had just under 6000 changes one way or another in just a few months over two years, if this is true and accurate it is a terrible endictment of the present system, in addition lessees were very expendable in my very brief conversation with the person, who wanted to remain anonymous but wanted to see change for the better. It could of course be a ploy to discredit any facts that FP may have been given, but I would like to think not. I am not a key player in FP just a supporter of their aims, I want to see the failure rate stopped, since I am constantly speaking to people in trouble or contacting me through www.buyingapub.com, this is not a commercial for the Blog Site, but if you are in trouble there are a number of us that will try and help, it would be fantastic if every one was happy and making money, but it is going to have to be a big change before it happens. This post replies to Gilbert Bank > Enterprise and Punch won't meet Fair Pint |
|
Gilbert Bank 09/08/2008 13:00:07![]() |
Enterprise and Punch won't meet Fair Pint Nigel, worse than I thought. However, in one way it could prove to be useful. For example how many of these changes involved dilapidation charges to the outgoing tenants, were these funds then used for the said purpose, or in the case of frequent changeover have multiple claims for dilaps been made? Do I need to type more? edited by: Gilbert Bank at: 09/08/2008 13:04:31 This post replies to Nigel Wakefield > Enterprise and Punch won't meet Fair Pint |
|