- 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 6 of 9
| Author Name | Opinion | Reply |
|---|---|---|
info man 03/07/2009 13:58:27  |
RE: Tuppen: ‘We’d pay £100k to new body’ part 2. The use of comparables in FMT calculations is also flawed as the pubcos choose the sites with the correct rents within a certain radius and offer these up as their evidence meaning that a publican would have to visit every pub within a ten mile radius (or further) and try and establish which were the most similar and then try and get the rental information and find out if they were viable (whilst most landlords will not give over this information). The only positive news is that Enterprise’s Nick Light told the BII members that all FMT information including historical barrelage data, comparables and rental information must be made available and fully disclosed to the publicans. Armed with this data the publican could investigate the comparables for themselves as well as look into the FMT projected sales and apply them to the market today. The system is broken as it still relies on the publican being able to get the correct information to make an informed decision with associated costs including valuers, accountants and lawyers in order to try and negotiate a fair deal.
For anyone to suggest that beer sales should increase in a tied arrangement when sales are dropping year on year goes beyond fiction. Enterprise went further to say that current turnovers will be disregarded if they do not come up to the levels that they deem to be achievable under a competent operator. This is bizarre as a competent operator would argue tooth and nail to get the lowest rent possible with the highest costs which is far from their view of someone being happy to pay a rent based on fictional turnover but with costs based on actual lower turnover. edited by: info man at: 03/07/2009 13:58:39 This post replies to info man > RE: Tuppen: ‘We’d pay £100k to new body’ |
|
| info man 03/07/2009 13:59:50 |
RE: Tuppen: ‘We’d pay £100k to new body’ Part 3. Enterprise also mentioned the so called 50/50 split of net profits and said that they take between 30 and 60% based on the sites with the more desirable achieving a higher share to them!(note this does not include the extra revenue they get by selling the beer on) It was suggested by BII members that there should be a database of pubs and rents so that the process of deeming comparables appropriate could be more transparent but this was dismissed as being unworkable? The thoughts put forward that there are so many different types of agreements the actual rents would be misleading without the terms. My question would be why? How difficult can it be and why would they not want this information to be available? Is it because they don’t want anyone to know?
One other very valid point is that Enterprise have discovered through their TMA (Trading Management agreements) that costs are actually far higher than they had predicted which would mean that the FMT’s they have given their publicans do not fully factor in the costs and are part of the reason for publicans earning less than £15,000 per annum (if anything at all). I understand that Nick has been contacted by BII members regarding some of his points and as yet has not responded so the jury is out on whether the whole exercise was spin or whether he will honour the statements made in front of BII members. edited by: info man at: 03/07/2009 14:00:32 This post replies to info man > RE: Tuppen: ‘We’d pay £100k to new body’ |
|
Columbo 03/07/2009 13:06:37 |
RE: Tuppen: ‘We’d pay £100k to new body’ I agree completely with you Mark, I know that Ted Tuppin and Simon Townsend are fully aware, do you think that the other board members are also as aware? This post replies to J Mark Dodds > RE: Tuppen: ‘We’d pay £100k to new body’ |
|
| Alastair Elliott 03/07/2009 14:24:41 |
Tuppen: ‘We’d pay £100k to new body’ Yes, Guy Arnold has had dealings with Ted Tuppen, Ted was his boss when Guy was a Regional Dictator, whoops, Director for Enterprise. I guess that fact slipped Guys mind. This post replies to this thread |
|
| Alastair Elliott 03/07/2009 14:25:38 |
Tuppen: ‘We’d pay £100k to new body’ Surely if this new 'body' was to have credibility those sitting on it would need to be trusted by Licensees, we have seen people like Tony Payne and Nick Bish as well as Camra side with the Pubco's on many issues. There are acknowledged experts on the lease model like David Morgan, Brian Jacobs, Bob Feal-Martinez, Nigel Wakefield just to name four who licensees would trust to act fairly and impartially. Both Bob and Nigel are long standing BII members and either former or current officers of the Institute. I know much of what is now being suggested has long been advocated by Bob and Nigel. So as an outsider looking in. If you want a system that will be trusted by lessees involve these people, not pubco stooges. This post replies to this thread |
|
Phil Liddell 03/07/2009 14:55:04 |
Tuppen: ‘We’d pay £100k to new body’ Tuppen needs to pay £100K for a new brain, rather than a "new body" This post replies to this thread |
|
| Columbo 03/07/2009 15:33:10 |
RE: Tuppen: ‘We’d pay £100k to new body’ I think it might be helpful to know if in fact Nick Light does respond to questions he has been asked, as this would indicate if he meant what he said at the BII meeting earlier this week, about Enterprise being open and transparent. This post replies to info man > RE: Tuppen: ‘We’d pay £100k to new body’ |
|
| info man 03/07/2009 15:37:05 |
RE: Tuppen: ‘We’d pay £100k to new body’ Columbo I will let you know as soon as I find out. The beauty of Enterprises rent meeting was that even more publicans are now realising that they are not alone in the way they have been allegedly treated. An excellent opportunity to network with publicans and the BII so Thanks enterprise. This post replies to Columbo > RE: Tuppen: ‘We’d pay £100k to new body’ |
|
David Morgan 03/07/2009 22:05:57 |
RE: Tuppen: ‘We’d pay £100k to new body’ At the BII roadshow in Chepstow (I think the first one) Nick Light was given some total horror stories/home truths of EI case histories by myself and Nigel Wakefield,as to how his BDMs "interpreted" the EI intended Code of Practice.He professed that he was amazed and shocked,took full details,promised a full investigation,heads would roll,di da di da,and that he would definitely come back to us both individually (one of the cases was Inez Ward-ring a bell ?). Result....NOTHING.Actions always speak louder than words as I am sure Nigel will back up when his busy last few days are over. As an RICS member I am precluded from any form of direct response re Info Mans cogent observations.Suffice it to say that others have somewhat acerbic thoughts on the validity of the remarks made that have figured in many other previous threads. This post replies to Columbo > RE: Tuppen: ‘We’d pay £100k to new body’ |
|
| Columbo 03/07/2009 22:43:03 |
RE: Tuppen: ‘We’d pay £100k to new body’ I think that perhaps Nick Light must answer questions put to him, as he stated various things at the Weybridge meeting infront of the other BII members, how would this look for Enterprise Inns if he does not honour his assurances given. As Enterprise Inns want the BII's approval, how could they give this approval if Nick does not honour what was stated at this meeting. I, for one as a BII member, would be looking to the BII to exclude them. edited by: Columbo at: 03/07/2009 22:43:15 This post replies to David Morgan > RE: Tuppen: ‘We’d pay £100k to new body’ |
|
