- Morning Advertiser >
- Forums >
- News Article Comments >
- Charles Wells commits to AWP reform
News Article Comments : Charles Wells commits to AWP reform
Charles Wells Pub Company is promising a fairer deal on machine income for its tenants.
The operator will still share the income with licensees but will no longer take machine earnings into account for the purpose of rent calculations.
The move follows an attack on pubcos by industry expert Phil Dixon at the Morning Advertiser's Tied Trade Summit.
He compared some tenanted pub companies to <stop>****</stop> Turpin in relation to the machine tie — “taking with both hands” by rentalising AWP earnings.
In the case of Charles Wells he said it comparable to finding out “Mother Theresa was running an escort agency from the back of the convent”.
A Charles Wells statement said: "Charles Wells Pub Company has reviewed its machines income policy, covering retailer agreements on Amusements with Prizes (AWP), Skill with Prizes (SWP), Pool tables and Jukeboxes.
"As a result it's announced that whilst it will continue to share machine income, the licensee's income from all of these machines will not be
14 Posts(s) found for this thread: Now displaying page 1 of 2
|
||
| Author Name | Opinion | Reply |
|---|---|---|
Richard Yates 22/06/2009 11:08:03  |
RE: Charles Wells commits to AWP reform When will these pub co's understand! This is not a concession at all, they shouldn't have been doing it in the first place! The TISC and the BEC report called to an end of the tie and this alone will the minimum we should expect on this issue! This post replies to this thread |
|
| Richard Yates 22/06/2009 11:12:53 |
RE: Charles Wells commits to AWP reform When will these pub co's understand! This is not a concession at all, they shouldn't have been doing it in the first place! The TISC and the BEC report called to an end of the tie and this alone will the minimum we should expect on this issue! This post replies to this thread |
|
info man 22/06/2009 11:29:40 |
RE: Charles Wells commits to AWP reform "As a result it's announced that whilst it will continue to share machine income, the licensee's income from all of these machines will not be taken into account for rental calculation purposes. WHY! Why should it continue to share income, it does not share costs? This should have been removed post 2004 as Richard has already said. There is absolutely no reason why they should get anything from it. They should be paying back the additional income they have taken in rent. Most publicans would not have even been aware it was being taken in rent also due to the non disclosure of rental valuations. This post replies to this thread |
|
david wine 22/06/2009 11:48:31 |
RE: Charles Wells commits to AWP reform we did away with our machine the brewery greene king tried to up our rent we found over the 4 years that the machine format print out was changed 4 times each time mysteriously our share got lower and lower but the pub was getting buisier it ended up that after the licence was paid there was nothing as well as that we paid the VAT the power and the extra cost of insurance and the asperin to counteract the migrain attacks brought on by the machines flashing lights like everything about the licenced trade in the UK as soon as the EU looks into the illegal tie under EU competition laws the better and lets face it there isa no room for the pubco monkey on ones back This post replies to this thread |
|
peter giles 22/06/2009 11:59:23 |
RE: Charles Wells commits to AWP reform When articles like this are written why can,t we have a more detailed comment from MA re what the BEC report stated when condeming the AWP tie not just "following the highly critical Business and Enterprise Committee report." Some people may read the article and actually believe this pubco is giving something back to it's tenants!!!! This post replies to this thread |
|
| Ewan Turney 22/06/2009 12:11:29 |
RE: Charles Wells commits to AWP reform Peter, Thanks for the feedback and have now added to the story. BEC called for a complete end to the machine tie. edited by: Ewan Turney at: 09/07/2009 14:29:31 This post replies to peter giles > RE: Charles Wells commits to AWP reform |
|
| peter giles 22/06/2009 12:29:14 |
RE: Charles Wells commits to AWP reform Cheers Ewan This post replies to Ewan Turney > RE: Charles Wells commits to AWP reform |
|
| Ian Charles 22/06/2009 13:01:09 |
RE: Charles Wells commits to AWP reform There is a lot of talk about the licensed trade turmoil at the moment but lets be honest, there always is ! The trade does have problems, cheap supermarket booze, the smoking ban, local authority "beaurocratic" control, rising costs for everything, and everyone wanting a piece of the pie eg ............for the pleasure of promoting music you have to pay not 1 but 2 licenses extra to rip off PRS and PPL (3 if you need MCPS or whatever it is :-)) But, and it is a big but, the trade as a whole does not have a much bigger problem than normal, the pubcos however, or the poor sods trying to run their pubs, do have major problems resulting in the chaos we are seeing today. I currently run a landlocked bar, and while trade is not fantastic I am doing well enough to earn a living, but if I was tied I would be out of business, and that is the problem that everyone can see, but these property companys will not admit. You cannot be competitive if you are tied, simple as that. I have been asked four times in the past 9 months to take over closed pubs my first question is always "will I be tied", answer "Yes" reply "No thanks then ". The trade at the moment isn't doing great but it will survive and things will get better, the pubcos on the other hand are struggling and will continue to do so as they are unworkable, the sad thing is we are losing thousands of good pubs because of these selfish greed pubcos. The tie should be outlawed and the pubcos should quite simply have a rent in place and leave it to the licensee to work their but off and hopefully make some money. This post replies to this thread |
|
| Ronald Peters 22/06/2009 23:30:55 |
RE: Charles Wells commits to AWP reform Can anyone tell me when AWP's legislation changed from my comments below ?
Ref To Page 38 regarding a call for AWP MACHINES TO BE FREE OF TIE. They (the Pub Co's) make so much money out of these machines for doing next to nothing for the income, and when you take everything into account, including electric as well the poor licensee makes nothing. Now for the facts. In 1984/5 New Government Laws Regarding AWP came out, and it meant that Licensee's could purchase their Own AWP's. At that time we ran The English Rose in Bristol BS11 OPL (NOW A BLOCK OF FLATS) and at the time applying for pub it was stated to us that it was a very good house for income of AWP and wanted a landlord to keep this up.
Tenants Share Brewery Share 1982/83 8000 5000 (Previous Tenant) 1983/84 12053 8011 1984/85 17141 11441 As you can see by the figures you would think Courages my Landlord would be very happy with the increase, from 5.000 to 11,441. NO NO NO they were not. They wanted to change and all the other tenants agreements from a 60/40 split to a 33.3% but they would pay the rent, they told all tenants they would be better off, many many tenants believe them. Facts 3200 machines in west (their figures) tenants would lose £36,224.53 per week * 52 = 1,883,675.74 a year . My figures showed I would lose £4,913, I mentioned the new regulations regarding buying my own, they then came back (after a long delay ) with a SITE RENT for the machines. edited by: Ronald Peters at: 22/06/2009 23:31:10 This post replies to this thread |
|
| Ronald Peters 22/06/2009 23:31:23 |
RE: Charles Wells commits to AWP reform This is where I come to the point at that time I was paying rent for the whole of the pub, (bar, lounge, club room, skittle alley) £12.228. They wanted for the space I already paid for that the AWP'S were on another £11,400 as site rent. So what I am saying, BEWARE, they might want to introduce site rents on past figures, and we all know takings on AWP are decreasing rapidly. Your comments please. edited by: Ronald Peters at: 22/06/2009 23:31:41 This post replies to this thread |
|
|
||
