- Morning Advertiser >
- Forums >
- News Article Comments >
- Payne: I won't lead new tenant body
News Article Comments : Payne: I won't lead new tenant body
Trade chief Tony Payne has said he doesn’t want to lead a new pubco--funded trade body for tenants.
This week Enterprise Inns chief executive Ted Tuppen said his company would pay £100,000 or more to fund a body to represent licensees, to redress the imbalance of power between pubcos and tenants.
Tuppen said Payne, Federation of Licensed VIctuallers Associations chief executive, would be right kind of person to set it up.
Payne said today: “I want to make it clear that I won’t be looking to lead a new organisation. Ten years ago perhaps, but I retire on 31 December [from being FLVA chief] and from then on for 12 months I will do some Parliamentary work for the FLVA as and when required.”
He said he’d offer his help to a new group “on the clear understanding that I wouldn’t be involved in the running of it”.
Tuppen suggested one idea may be to impose a levy across all tenanted companies, according to the size of their estates, to fund the new body.
13 Posts(s) found for this thread: Now displaying page 1 of 2
|
||
| Author Name | Opinion | Reply |
|---|---|---|
Columbo 03/07/2009 13:38:02 |
RE: Payne: I won't lead new tenant body A good choice Mr. Payne as you would not want to be tarnished by Enterprise Inns in any way. Everyone know that if Enterprise injects monies to any organisation, they will want to pull their strings. This post replies to this thread |
|
Dave Mountford 03/07/2009 13:44:45  |
RE: Payne: I won't lead new tenant body I couldnt agree more Columbo - any tenant support body HAS to be totally independant in every way. Perhaps Fair Pint ? can look at the feasibility of setting something up ? This post replies to Columbo > RE: Payne: I won't lead new tenant body |
|
info man 03/07/2009 13:50:31 |
RE: Payne: I won't lead new tenant body Ted won't even speak to Fair Pint, they annoy him because the speak the truth and won't go away. A constructive move would be to sponser Fair Pint and the FSB as they want to change the status quo but i think i would expect to see a squadron of flying pigs before this would happen. Mr Payne, you have made a very wise choice, especially given your duties over the next year or so. edited by: info man at: 03/07/2009 13:51:19 This post replies to Dave Mountford > RE: Payne: I won't lead new tenant body |
|
| J Mark Dodds 03/07/2009 17:09:30 |
RE: Payne: I won't lead new tenant body An independent trade association funded by the pubcos...laughable!! This post replies to this thread |
|
| J Mark Dodds 05/07/2009 20:32:50 |
RE: Payne: I won't lead new tenant body Funnily enough, that's not a bad idea for once. This post replies to Carpe Jugulum > RE: Payne: I won't lead new tenant body |
|
| David Pott 05/07/2009 20:35:03 |
RE: Payne: I won't lead new tenant body Mark don't kick it out too early. I believe that the LVAs were heavily funded by the brewers which is one of the reasons many folded not long after the beer orders. Sometimes the LVA and the brewers fought on the same side other times they fought each other. At least it was a voice that was instantly recognizable as being that of the publican's. This post replies to J Mark Dodds > RE: Payne: I won't lead new tenant body |
|
| J Mark Dodds 05/07/2009 20:55:39 |
RE: Payne: I won't lead new tenant body No, no David, Wasn't meaning to knock the idea of LVA taking up the cudgel - just Roberts suggested Fair Pint ought to consider the possibility - which is something we thought about since before day one. Just Fair Pint is a Campaign not a membership organisation and, realistically, making such a transition is not necessarily a natural development. In some ways it makes a lot of sense to try to bring existing bodies together with a unified stance. But we have been considering the need for an independent trade body - obviously - because it's so desperately lacking. See what the Whisky people did on tax? What did the beer lot manage? ZILCH. edited by: J Mark Dodds at: 05/07/2009 20:55:47 This post replies to David Pott > RE: Payne: I won't lead new tenant body |
|
| David Pott 05/07/2009 21:08:29 |
RE: Payne: I won't lead new tenant body Sorry Mark you miss understood my point because I didn't put my point clearly. I feel any incentive to set up a body to represent the publicans must be applauded and funds from whatever direction don't necessarily mean being subservient to the donor. Hence my reference to the old LVAs who could and did fight with and against the brewers. Hats off to FP you have done far more than I ever thought you could possibly do. But there is still a danger of the baby getting thrown out with the bath water if you refuse to accept that there is a middle ground. This post replies to J Mark Dodds > RE: Payne: I won't lead new tenant body |
|
| Ronald Peters 06/07/2009 10:07:58 |
RE: Payne: I won't lead new tenant body Dear David, Ron Peters, ex Chairman of Bristol L.V.A., L.V.T.A. West, and also on National Council of N.L.V.A. What a load of garbage, "heavily funded by the brewers" I do not know where that thinking has come from, in fact that is very hurtful. I and many others like Billy Sharp,Brian Rees and others it has cost us Thousands of pounds, not to mention the thousands of hours (free) we have given up to help many Licensee's all over the country. Lets also remember that our wives had to hold the fort while we were away. Maybe you should think again ? edited by: Ronald Peters at: 06/07/2009 10:08:19 This post replies to David Pott > RE: Payne: I won't lead new tenant body |
|
| Nigel Wakefield 06/07/2009 23:26:58 |
RE: Payne: I won't lead new tenant body Ron the LVA's that I have been involved with, a few well meaning people wanted to help licenseess but the majority of members condemned me for owning freehouses and inferred that my sort was not welcome, so I joined the BII, because as a feehouse owner I had very little information on the industry. I also questioned the wisdom of wasting loads of money on abortive court cases which were doomed from the start without the use of a QC which they could not afford. The LVA's idea in principle was good but like all organisations without massive funds in this economic climate it is a toothless tiger, as a voice it is fine but sadly you need expensive legal clout, the old brewers were gentlemen who respected the industry and licensees, the present Pub Co owners, a large number I would not call gentleman and the only thing they understand is using the law or threat of law to enforce their policies, which would destroy any LVA financially with two court cases. This post replies to Ronald Peters > RE: Payne: I won't lead new tenant body |
|
|
||
