- Morning Advertiser >
- Forums >
- News Article Comments >
- Tuppen: ‘We’d pay £100k to new body’
News Article Comments : Tuppen: ‘We’d pay £100k to new body’
Enterprise Inns boss Ted Tuppen says his company would happily pay a levy of £100,000 or more to set up a body to represent individual licensees to redress the imbalance of power between licensees and tenanted pub companies.
Tuppen said one idea might be to impose a levy across all the tenanted companies, according to the size of their pub estates, to fund the body.
He said: “The Federation of Licensed Victuallers Associations already exists and might be a good place to start. It will cost whatever is necessary. I’d support a levy based on the number of pubs within a company.”
Asked whether a figure like the FLVA’s chief executive Tony Payne would be the right person to head an independent body, he said: “Tony Payne is the perfect person to set this up, although there are lots of good, independent and re-spected people who could act on behalf of licensees. It’s important people keep a sense of proportion — there aren’t 30,000 licensees being driven out of business by the pubcos.”
86 Posts(s) found for this thread: Now displaying page 7 of 9
| Author Name | Opinion | Reply |
|---|---|---|
info man 04/07/2009 12:51:49  |
RE: Tuppen: ‘We’d pay £100k to new body’ Columbo i agree if this is found out to be some kind of PR stunt or spin then the BII should seriously think about removing Enterprise's code of practice from their approved list. You can't sponser a BII event, tell BII members what you will do and not do it. Let's see what happens next. edited by: info man at: 04/07/2009 12:52:55 This post replies to Columbo > RE: Tuppen: ‘We’d pay £100k to new body’ |
|
David Morgan 04/07/2009 08:51:29 |
RE: Tuppen: ‘We’d pay £100k to new body’ Info/Columbo,the devil is not in the detail,but in the delegation.Time and again,up and down the country in both Pubcos and Breweries I have detailed case histories of the footsoldiers (BRMs and BDMs) that have to get "a result".Their jobs,pensions,families etc depend on a whole series of horror story tactics (OK-not all of them) that would never be openly condoned by Senior Management.In turn Senior Management at all levels,with hand on heart,will tell you the full detail of their Company or Brewery Policy/Code of Practice that is striving for a truely caring and sympathetic partnership,seeking the very best lessees and never wishing to see anyone fail,because it costs the Company too much.In' line management' in terms of delegation its called "Total Deniability",because you have firmly declared the detail of Corporate policy,by which all employees are bound. Look at it this way,if you were senior Management would you really want your BRMs constantly condoning 30% rent reductions and additional product discounting across say half of their individual areas of responsibility.No,you would quietly pat them on the back for maintaining Corporate income in the teeth of the recession and be Nelsonian in how it was achieved.If however the heat got heavy and the press or independent advice became involved,the lowly BRM is always expendable,and can be sacked as "a rogue element", and "he wasn't one of us-poor recruitment policy".Thus you preserve "Total Deniability" and can keep open the Corporate mantra in public forums.I have file upon file backing these observations,particularly relating to my involvement with The Licensed trade Charity.The Fraud Act or Harrassment legislation is nearly always financially out of reach of the victim-sorry,Lessee. This post replies to info man > RE: Tuppen: ‘We’d pay £100k to new body’ |
|
Columbo 04/07/2009 13:33:15 |
RE: Tuppen: ‘We’d pay £100k to new body’ David I hear what you are saying. My point is their attitude has too stop. If a person who gives talks and advice to BII members, then surely if this person does not follow up on promises made at that meeting, then the BII would have to become involved, as they are also responsible for the speakers they invite. All to often in the past, I agree with you, promises were made, and then broken. We are now in a completely different time where Enterprise Inns will not get away with lack of transparancy. I would like to add that the fraud (2006) act is not out of reach of all. Gone are the days where Enterprise Inns can spin, and then shout " We were not aware of what was going on" when the CEO has received, and all THE BOARD MEMBERS of Enterprise Inns, have received proof of what is going on within the company. edited by: Columbo at: 04/07/2009 13:33:56 This post replies to David Morgan > RE: Tuppen: ‘We’d pay £100k to new body’ |
|
| info man 04/07/2009 10:54:12 |
RE: Tuppen: ‘We’d pay £100k to new body’ http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/4474919.Village_mystery_as_pub_is_closed/ HOW MANY MORE This post replies to Columbo > RE: Tuppen: ‘We’d pay £100k to new body’ |
|
4707, lets call me Vince 04/07/2009 13:48:47 |
RE: Tuppen: ‘We’d pay £100k to new body’ David/Columbo, I have known Nick Light for 22 years and was a tenat/leaseholder when he was an area manager. He has big company corporate values in his veins, through and through. He is as good as our Ted when it comes to an ability to make out that your wage margin is too high, your gp too low and your rent incredibly reasonable at the level they want to set for the next x yeras. Until Nick, Ted and a few others are removed from their positions within the Pubcos, don't expect to see genuine change. I have hope for Punch because their new boy is from a differnt sector of inductry where they seem to want to work with their stakeholders, but I am not holding my breath there either! This post replies to David Morgan > RE: Tuppen: ‘We’d pay £100k to new body’ |
|
| Columbo 04/07/2009 14:58:03 |
RE: Tuppen: ‘We’d pay £100k to new body’ Well we will just have to keep a careful eye on Nick then, as he cannot say one thing at a public BII meeting, and not follow it through, because would that not show an intent to decieve? This post replies to 4707, lets call me Vince > RE: Tuppen: ‘We’d pay £100k to new body’ |
|
| Nigel Wakefield 04/07/2009 15:11:10 |
RE: Tuppen: ‘We’d pay £100k to new body’ David, I raised isuues with Nick Light on three lessees who were all over rented, two were suffering severe hardship, the third had just taken a lease because his Business Plan had been accepted. His turnover would have needed trebling to break even. All three eventually got a reduction in rent, which a Deed of Variation would not be agreed to and a full tie was imposed. The alleviation of their worries was in my opinion temporary, but I have to grudgingly admit that it helped them all and two are still in business, the third sold his lease, with new lessee taking a brand new EI lease. "Frying pan to Fire" springs to mind. This post replies to David Morgan > RE: Tuppen: ‘We’d pay £100k to new body’ |
|
| info man 04/07/2009 15:30:06 |
RE: Tuppen: ‘We’d pay £100k to new body’ Nigel I fear the reduction in dry rent would have been directly balanced by the full tie, where has this full tie come from ? They give with one hand and take with the other so nothing changes. I will contact the publicans on Monday to see if Nick has been true to his word and answered their questions. I won't hold my breath. This post replies to Nigel Wakefield > RE: Tuppen: ‘We’d pay £100k to new body’ |
|
Peter Eveleigh 04/07/2009 15:03:22 |
RE: Tuppen: ‘We’d pay £100k to new body’ It would make for an interesting constructive dismissal case if one of the "foot soldiers", having assiduously adhered to their code of practice arrived at the hallowed ground of suggesting a rent reduction, were to suddenly find his services no longer required !! (hope springs eternal) On the wider issue of rent; and the enshrined premise of being "equitable", rent should always be based on a rate which provides a reasonable return on the investment for the landlord against a competitive - sustainable outlay for the tenant. Is it actually the tenant's fault that the landlord might have overstretched his borrowing & what requirement in law dictates that the tenant should contribute to the associated interest charge. Rent is rent; interest it surely aint. For the life of me; what is the difference between the profit share principle and the income of a pimp (morality not foresaking). Compared with the £ / sq ft basis what do you think the response might be if a landlord demanded a share of a hedge fund company's profit. Now that ALL premises have a confirmed trading area as per LA2003 plans, there is surely no excuse for not getting rid of the entire profit share principle for rent assessment - full stop. As for the trying to maintain the balance between Tied and FOT rents, why cant the "experts" assess all premises as free of tie, then deduct the "surplus barrelage profit" arising from the increased tied product pricing (wet rent)to produce the comparable total rent - that would have transparancy. This post replies to David Morgan > RE: Tuppen: ‘We’d pay £100k to new body’ |
|
| Nigel Wakefield 04/07/2009 15:20:29 |
RE: Tuppen: ‘We’d pay £100k to new body’ Columbo, at the Chepstow BII Rent Road Show, I did ask Nick Light as to which EI he worked for because it bore no similarity with the one that I dealt with. I have been away but I hope that you all managed to debate the rental valuation system into serious doubt and ignored the humbug that I got at Chepstow BII Rent Road Show. Phil Dixon would appear to be changing course which would be very helpful. On the learned Mr Tuppens offer of £100K for a body to safeguard lessees interests. From the Daily Mail this morning Punch's total worth is £267m over debts of £4.4bn, does this take into consideration extended debt credit from suppliers, both companies would appear to be very similar, with similar stock market valuations. Is the £100k on offer truly available, securely ring fenced and not going to be subjected to endorsing EI's corporate policy or influence? If it is not subject to any control then Fair Pint who would appear to be the only body that is not influenced to a greater or lesser degree by financial pressures at this moment of time, who have always had the lessees interests as their main objective. If they shouild become an influential body as with any trade body to satisfy fairness and transparency throughout the industry they should consider all sides interests totally fairly. Because one company can donate £100K and a sole licensee £10 or nothing, the size of the donation should not influence the decision and I think a number of bodies within the industry should stand up against this financial pressure if they wish to remain truly independent and unbiased, at present there are questions marks in most licensees minds over most of them. This post replies to Columbo > RE: Tuppen: ‘We’d pay £100k to new body’ |
|
