- 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 8 of 9
| Author Name | Opinion | Reply |
|---|---|---|
Nigel Wakefield 04/07/2009 17:05:09  |
RE: Tuppen: ‘We’d pay £100k to new body’ Infoman my sentiments exactly, but by doing that they assume that they are better off, to me it's a blatant con. This is why I said in an earlier post, sign a Deed of Variation and take away the full tie. This post replies to info man > RE: Tuppen: ‘We’d pay £100k to new body’ |
|
4707, lets call me Vince 04/07/2009 17:25:45 |
RE: Tuppen: ‘We’d pay £100k to new body’ The trouble is that they genuinely believe their own propaganda and it is only now that MP's and others are beginning to see them for what they are - dinosaurs from a bygone age of pliant tenants and paternalistic brewers. If you go back far enough, the paternalistic brewers were good to their tenants. Somewhen between the 60's and 80's the money boys got involved because they realised that there was money to be wrung out of the trade and boy have they wrung it, and all of us on the front line with it. Apparently there are still some good companies - I have been told that Brakespeare's are very tenant friendly. This post replies to Columbo > RE: Tuppen: ‘We’d pay £100k to new body’ |
|
Columbo 04/07/2009 22:43:38 |
RE: Tuppen: ‘We’d pay £100k to new body’ I cannot think of any better body that Fair Pint, but I have the feeling that Ted or his sidekick Simon Townsend might not think along the same lines. So far, they will not even come to a meeting where Fair Pint are, I guess it is because they know that Fair Pint cannot be bought. This post replies to Nigel Wakefield > RE: Tuppen: ‘We’d pay £100k to new body’ |
|
David Morgan 05/07/2009 07:38:46 |
RE: Tuppen: ‘We’d pay £100k to new body’ Peter,the issue of transparency seems to me to be influenced by from which end of the telescope you are looking.Yes,the basis of the assessment of Free of Tie and then counting back is entirely valid.In fact as a basis of "testing the system" I have used exactly that method in the last four Arbitration referrals (precisely because there were four different Arbitrators,not the same bloke !) to the squeals and indignation from the Pubco experts on the other side.I have yet to get the first Decision/Award so we shall see.The method is the same as Brian Jacobs has been setting out in thread after thread,that the supply tied Tenant should be no worse off in equivalence terms that the supply free tenant. The other major bone of contention is that of comperables.Almost all Pubcos/Brewers will cherry pick comperables to prove their case.When I make formal applications for Disclosure in arbitrations to unravel the whole truth they put up every conceivable excuse not to assist/comply.Transparency...no chance.However Enterprise Inns are past masters of "the now you see it,now you don't" comperable.You will get all the EI pubs in your zone of enquiry,BUT,on a rent only basis.No details of trade or barrelage so you can't actually make a comparison.Woe betide if you actually go and see the other Lessees to find out the grisly truth.You can then accused of harrassment and we have cases where Lessees have been warned off from saying anything by the footsoldiers,"for their own good,and the sake of harmonious relations with the Company".Read into that what you will. For my thoughts on comparability and the establishment of a National register of pub rentals,my evidence at the BEC hearings last November stands as public record. This post replies to Peter Eveleigh > RE: Tuppen: ‘We’d pay £100k to new body’ |
|
| Inez Ward 05/07/2009 10:52:03 |
Tuppen: ‘We’d pay £100k to new body’ Tuppen is a business man, many may question the business ethics, however he is a business man and as a business man what return would he expect on his 100K? My personal view would be to take his money, it's about time he gave something back, however take it under contract so that he can have no input into the body whatsoever and give it to a body that is not going to be swayed in their decisions by the donation of Tuppen. edited by: Inez Ward at: 05/07/2009 10:57:32 This post replies to this thread |
|
| J Mark Dodds 05/07/2009 12:06:13 |
Tuppen: ‘We’d pay £100k to new body’ Some interesting information on 'Company Unions' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_union which is the only kind of body that can come out of Enterprise's offer. This type of corporately sponsored 'representative body' is widely discredited internationally and was even outlawed in the US between the World Wars. Historically company funded associations have been offered up by big bosses typically at times of severe strife and strike as evidence to workers that the company takes their views seriously and wants to co-operate with the workforce. Without exception the offer of a company funded 'autonomous' workers' representative body is made on condition that there must be no interference from outside influences such as traditional unions or independent workers' guilds. This is to keep the waters unmuddied by partisan interests (not that the company has partisan interests!). When workers accept the bosses' offer as a potentially constructive route to reconciliation a wave of workers' unrest immediately dissipates as they engage in discussion. The process inevitably breaks down further along by which time the company has manoeuvred itself into a stronger position from which it can pick off troublemakers and recruit a less awkward workforce under new contractual terms. Sound Familiar? edited by: J Mark Dodds at: 05/07/2009 12:06:29 This post replies to Inez Ward > Tuppen: ‘We’d pay £100k to new body’ |
|
| Inez Ward 05/07/2009 11:47:39 |
Tuppen: ‘We’d pay £100k to new body’ Funnily enough yes it does sound familiar, far to familiar, and exactly the reason for contracts. Whichever way it is not likely to occur in any seriousness, I can't see Tuppen signing any contract that would effectively completely remove him and his company from any input whatsoever into the body and I cannot see the tenants believing in a body that the company has input into or associations with. This post replies to J Mark Dodds > Tuppen: ‘We’d pay £100k to new body’ |
|
Peter Eveleigh 05/07/2009 14:11:18 |
RE: Tuppen: ‘We’d pay £100k to new body’ In the dawn of laser rangefinding, engineers would sometimes look into the instrument from the objective (wrong) end to confirm if they could see the "ping" of laser light - thus confirming that the energy was at least being generated. 1 megaloule through magnified optics (all-be-it for just a nanosecond) did far more that just make your eyes water. We know which end of the telescope is in your field of view David; I wonder if the "other parties" are aware of the hazards!! This post replies to David Morgan > RE: Tuppen: ‘We’d pay £100k to new body’ |
|
| David Morgan 05/07/2009 21:05:48 |
RE: Tuppen: ‘We’d pay £100k to new body’ Peter,when I did my land surveying module as a part of my RICS field examinations all those years ago we useed a robust piece of equipment known as a Dumpy Level.Straightforward,simple,and nigh on unbreakable unless you dropped it in a pond (some careles dingbats managed even that !).The device measured levels,straight lines,consistency and produced true results.Today my experience,honed over too many years of boxxxxxs and cxxp from the creators of strife leads me to believe that the simplist of instruments to create/achieve a genuine level should be known as a Numpty Level,because that is time and again what we are both dealing with.Keep smiling ! This post replies to Peter Eveleigh > RE: Tuppen: ‘We’d pay £100k to new body’ |
|
| J Mark Dodds 05/07/2009 21:30:29 |
RE: Tuppen: ‘We’d pay £100k to new body’ I have a dumpy in the shed and a laser level in a cupboard. Also a long transparent hose which, when filled with water, does a perfect job of sussing levels for footings across difficult sites. Alas I am a publican now and there's not a lot of demand for these instruments which establish levels but then David, establishing the kind of levels we demand requires much more robust equipment than even the 'Numpty' eh? edited by: J Mark Dodds at: 05/07/2009 21:30:44 This post replies to David Morgan > RE: Tuppen: ‘We’d pay £100k to new body’ |
|
