- Morning Advertiser >
- Forums >
- News Article Comments >
- Breaking the tie not the answer, says experienced host
News Article Comments : Breaking the tie not the answer, says experienced host
A senior licensee and trade representative believes removing the tie will seal the fate of hundreds of community pubs.
Dennis Griffiths, Enterprise lessee of the Miners Rest in Barnsley and a senior vice president of the Federation of Licensed Victuallers Associations, said he believed a fair deal could be had within the current system.
“In my personal view, it is great that we have lots of MPs now taking up the cause of the pubs but we need to educate them,” said Griffiths. “Removing the tie will spark a rent review and undoubtedly the rent will go up.
“If you expect the pubco to lose 60% of their take from a pub — well, that is pie in the sky. Pubcos are no angels, they get what they can but I think they are realising they have gone too far. It is similar to the Innterpreneur situation in the 1990s and we need to get back on track.
“We need to regroup as an industry together — pubcos and tenants together.”
He added that he believed those pubs selling less than 200-barrels a year
26 Posts(s) found for this thread: Now displaying page 1 of 3
| Author Name | Opinion | Reply |
|---|---|---|
David Pott 03/04/2009 15:59:19  |
RE: Breaking the tie not the answer, says experienced host How dare he talk sense! But no doubt he will be ridiculed for stating the truth that if this campaign isn't careful it will do irreparable damage to thousands of pubs. This post replies to this thread |
|
| Tony Preston 03/04/2009 16:17:14 |
Breaking the tie not the answer, says experienced host I'm not sure, but I think that in fact, most people don't actually care if the tie is removed. They want an equitable solution - which could of course be based around the tie. I think that the reason people don’t lament the demise of the tie is that it has thus far not been equitable, and the negotiations available around the business model as a whole do not exist, and that the tie is a very clear focus and indicator of the lack of equitability because it is easy to compare against the open market prices one can elicit. It is also one of the fundemental imbalances of the PubCo model. The true fact of the matter is that the PubCo’s must acquiesce to a reduced income - there is no other way round this. If costs are going up all around, inside the PubCo model and in general, there is no way for them to maintain the current situation without the models ultimate demise. Nobody - us or the PubCo’s, can have all we want, so there has to be give. The collective 'We' have nothing in the most part to give - the tie would be fine if it was managed in an appropriate way, but the temptation is - must be by the nature of where we are now - that it is a means to an end for the managing agent of the tie - it is a 1-way street to revenue here in terms of equitability. Thus, the harbinger would conclude that in general terms, if the tie were to be fairly implemented and other elements of the relationship were equally scrutinised to the benefit of long term symbiotic operational harmony, neither party would complain in the most part. PubCo’s are a business, have shareholders and a need for profit – but surely, not at this expense. Keep the tie / remove the tie – do as is required BUT even up the business imbalance and allow operators to be able to operate – and I’m sorry, the ONLY way is for the PubCo’s to require less cash from the estate – or provide something to the estate that allows greater cash revenue so we all profit, which means investement in us. This post replies to this thread |
|
| Nigel Wakefield 03/04/2009 17:23:41 |
Breaking the tie not the answer, says experienced host If the Pub Co's realised that by setting up very viable trading conditions so that all lessees made money, they would at the end of the day be far better off. Sales would go up, the twelve to eighteen month failure or disenchantment rate would cease. Pubs would not change hands and save the Pub Co's £30K per change and everyone would make money. It's a question of which Pub Co is going to rethink their strategy first or does long term thinking not exist with these companies. We have had grab the cash any way that can be done vaguely legally and the industry is falling apart. Get rid of the Accountants who know absolutely nothing about the industry and just punch theoretical numbers, get knowledgeable people in who understand how licensees think. It's a nice thought but extremely unlikely, removing the tie would become irrelevant if reasonable discounts were passed on, licensees dealt direct with the brewers and received decent credit terms, which would boost their cash flow. Limited DD's and cash with order etc are crippling cash flow and effective trading. Pretty well all the Pub Co bosses should go to Spec Savers they are all so short sighted. This post replies to this thread |
|
| info man 03/04/2009 21:32:15 |
Breaking the tie not the answer, says experienced host As usual a balanced common sense approach, beats scarmongering. If the pubcos came to the table with a fair tie it would probably be acceptable but current rents would have to be set at a level where the publican can earn minimum wage for starters. The costs would have to be split down the middle based on profits of the business and the method of potential and make believe super tennants would have to be dropped. This post replies to Nigel Wakefield > Breaking the tie not the answer, says experienced host |
|
Columbo 03/04/2009 23:16:58 |
Breaking the tie not the answer, says experienced host and it is two for one at spec savers now, thats Ted and Giles sorted!! This post replies to Nigel Wakefield > Breaking the tie not the answer, says experienced host |
|
Rent Review help 05/04/2009 00:17:18 |
RE: Breaking the tie not the answer, says experienced host In Principle, I have never had any issue with agreeing to buy any or all of my supplies from my Central Purchasing Organisation. When I signed up I was buying into the idea of "benefiting from the massive purchasing power" of my Pubco to buy supplies at Competitive prices. I am still prepared to do so, in fact for 3 years I bought all my untied minerals from them because they were the best deal around. Then my BDM got all interested in giving me some cash if I accepted a mineral tie. Loys of pressure, which I declined because of the pressure. Within 6 weeks untied mineral prices were up by 40%. Thank god I did not accept the deal. The tie can work, I have never said it cannot as at the minimum it guarantees volume through a central purchasing group.. I have no issue with the CPG making a profit but I have just had to put up my cask prices to £3.25 a pint. A few weeks ago Sam Smiths were in court defending 9 unfair dismissal cases on the grounds that if they put up their prices over £1.40 per pint they would suffer and they had to force their managers to work another 100 hours per week or something. A fair control on the profit made in the tie vs free trade would be acceptable but the current lies and obfuscation is not. This post replies to this thread |
|
| JohnD 05/04/2009 11:36:53 |
RE: Breakinade is the acing the pub trg the tie not the answer, says experienced host The most serious issue facing the pub trade is the loopholes left unwittingly behind, by the BEER ORDER 1989, which the two pubcos have been exploiting ruthessly, to the collective detriment of the industry. They have been able to buy up thyousands of pubs using OPM, Other People's Money, at times with 200% mortgages with nil deposits! In doing so they are bleeding it to death. giles thornley has personally pocketed £30million in a short space of time! and what for? Surely that should be paid back? This post replies to this thread |
|
| David Pott 05/04/2009 11:59:30 |
RE: Breakinade is the acing the pub trg the tie not the answer, says experienced host The Beer Orders were repealed a few years ago. This post replies to JohnD > RE: Breakinade is the acing the pub trg the tie not the answer, says experienced host |
|
| Stephen Corbett 05/04/2009 13:32:53 |
RE: Breakinade is the acing the pub trg the tie not the answer, says experienced host David, the Beer Orders were revoked because the brewers dont own the pubs anymore. This post replies to David Pott > RE: Breakinade is the acing the pub trg the tie not the answer, says experienced host |
|
| J Mark Dodds 05/04/2009 15:04:11 |
RE: Breaking the tie not the answer, says experienced host There is a lot of good old fashioned mythical baloney about what would happen when the tie is outlawed... Dennis Griffiths has a lot to say and says it loud and clear but a lot of what he says is steeped with the attitudes of a fabled paternalistic tradition in the pub industry. This line is consistent with what he put forward last year when Greg Mulholland invited 'industry leaders' to a round table discussion to try to find a way of uniting the trade and getting people back into pubs. Dennis's differentiation between pubs that do 600 barrels and those on 200 or less is more an emotive position than one based in fact. Removing the tie will benefit EVERYONE except the pubcos. Pubcos will not drop their prices without being forced to do so. They cannot then willy nilly put up rents to take into account lost revenue from wholesale supply. The two income streams are separate even though they choose to regard them as the same. These are rapidly changing times; times where arguments based on detailed and accurate assessment of the industry and on logic, fact and figures are finally beginning to hold sway over easy soundbites, bluster and sweeping statements that sound good but only serve to maintain the outmoded and bankrupt status quo. This post replies to this thread |
|
