- Morning Advertiser >
- Forums >
- News Article Comments >
- Living with the fallout of the Beer Orders
News Article Comments : Living with the fallout of the Beer Orders
The heavens opened but I’m not sure it was rain that descended on my head a few weeks ago when I said in this space that not every pub in the land was having a bad time. The result was letters to this paper and emails direct to me that suggested, expletives deleted, that I had finally lost my remaining marbles and should be carted off to the funny farm in a back-to-front jacket.
I know and appreciate that many licensees are having a terrible time. I hope I have addressed the problem more recently with the tragic story of the married couple in a rural Hertfordshire pub who lost everything — home, livelihood and life’s savings — when they couldn’t make a living from their pub and left before they were evicted.
The owner of the Hertfordshire pub is Punch Taverns. I’m not suggesting the company is run by hard-faced villains. Neither am I suggesting that a traditional brewer with a tied estate might not sometimes act in the same way.
But I am convinced that many of the problems facing th
| Author Name | Opinion | Reply |
|---|---|---|
J Mark Dodds 16/09/2008 10:03:53 |
RE: Living with the fallout of the Beer Orders Mr Protz I take my hat off to you - please submit this article as part of your evidence to the Business Enterprise Committee before 29th September. This post replies to this thread |
|
Ken Nason 16/09/2008 10:24:33 |
Living with the fallout of the Beer Orders Only goes to show what the "old sweats" who were around prior to the beer orders have always said. The Pubcos are in it for the Pubcos and no one else. Enterprises initial style of attempting to make money for themselves from the outset was shown within days of their acquiring their first Pubs from M&B by attempting to screw tenants on handover for dilapidations clauses that had never in living memory been enforced by M&B. There is nothing new in the Pubcos actions just more of it. As I have said many times why the surprise when the Pubcos come up with a new money making scheme? They never were and never will be your partners. Ken Nason This post replies to this thread |
|
| J Mark Dodds 16/09/2008 10:35:55 |
Living with the fallout of the Beer Orders Exactly Ken. Therefore regulation is the only way to get them to behave. This post replies to Ken Nason > Living with the fallout of the Beer Orders |
|
| Ken Nason 16/09/2008 19:20:41 |
Living with the fallout of the Beer Orders Mark nice to be in the sane room with someone with a brain. Regulation is as you say the solution but unfortunately this governments definition of regulation usually refers to screwing as much out of the hard working law abiding people of the country whilst the perpetrators walk away unpunished. My one fear is as I said before that any regulation that is recommended by the committe will be met with dragging feet by the government in implimentation plus watering down of the requirements so as not to hurt businesses (the Pubcos) In the mean time I can see half of the trade outlets disappearing by then. The 10-20 years stated on the McDonald programme was way too optomistic by far in my view. We will just have to get over the hurdle of the committee and see how things unfold. KEn Nason This post replies to J Mark Dodds > Living with the fallout of the Beer Orders |
|
George Baker 17/09/2008 18:19:42 |
Living with the fallout of the Beer Orders Mr Protz analyses the problem very succinctly and accurately. What on earth is the advantage of a tied lease as distinct from the pre-Beer Orders tenancy? The effect and extent of the tie is virtually the same, leasehold rents are certainly no cheaper and in many cases are a much higher percentage of turnover, and a lease carries full property repairing and insuring responsibilities whereas the tenant had responsibility only for internal decor. So, the only possible plus point for the lease model is the potential for a capital gain. Erh . . . . what capital gain exactly? Even if the business could show growth in turnover and/or profitability, any capital gain is likely to be wiped out by (a) schedule of dilapidations, (b) a selling agent's fee (£7,000 or so), and (c) the consequences of a complete dearth of available finance for a lease. If 50% financing was available for a lease previously, while banks today will not lend a bean, doesn't this suggest that the price has to be reduced (by half?) to find the same stock of potential purchaser? Far more likely is for business turnover to have fallen considerably, thus generating a capital LOSS, and even if the leaseholder takes the loss, then a sale is likely to be thwarted by the rent being an unacceptably high proportion of the (reduced) turnover. And so another set of keys left under the mat while the leaseholder walks off into oblivion and the Benefits Office. I recently asked our resident property market 'expert', Mr Allman, to give us some answers to his ludicrous and endless assertions that tied leases offered untold riches. Needless to say the silence has been deafening! edited by: George Baker at: 17/09/2008 18:19:57 This post replies to this thread |
