- 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 9 of 9
| Author Name | Opinion | Reply |
|---|---|---|
info man 06/07/2009 09:32:01  |
RE: Tuppen: ‘We’d pay £100k to new body’ I just had an update from the publicans who were asking questions at the BII Enterprise Inns sponsered roadshow. Mr Light would not comment on what HE said at the rent show only that his speech have been MISINTERPRETED. The BII member's questions asked were: 1. You said that under your new trading management agreements you were finding costs to be higher than anticipated and i hoped that you could clarify this for me. 2. Do you stand by the ALMR benchmarking survey with costs at 60% of net turnover? and wages at 27%? 3. Do you agree that the FMT valautions and comparables must be made fully available for publicans as you stated yesterday in front of the BII members? I think that this kind of transparancy is necessary and commend you on this view. 4. Lastly when i asked why the profit made from Enterprise selling the beer onto the publicans is not included in the profit assessment i was told that this would not be taken into account. I wonder if you would be kind enough to explore this further as my understanding of the agreement is that the profits of the business must be taken into account when assessing the rental income? Where does this extra revenue go if it is not listed in the FMT? It would appear that sponsering the event was a PR exercise and that the BII have been used to try and give credance to Enterprise Inns. This information has been forwarded on to the BII for their view on events. The rent show was attended by many BII members who will varify what was said on the day. This post replies to info man > RE: Tuppen: ‘We’d pay £100k to new body’ |
|
Columbo 08/07/2009 22:09:26 |
RE: Tuppen: ‘We’d pay £100k to new body’ MISINTERPRETED, there was no misinterpretation, he said what he said. Such a shame that this "new approach" of Enterprise Inns is still just a con. Misleading, or incorrect more like. As a matter of interest, has anyone seen their BM recently? have he/she come around to offer advice? edited by: Columbo at: 08/07/2009 22:10:19 This post replies to info man > RE: Tuppen: ‘We’d pay £100k to new body’ |
|
| J Mark Dodds 08/07/2009 22:14:21 |
RE: Tuppen: ‘We’d pay £100k to new body’ What DO BDMs do? Having said that, my latest BDM has actually BEEN to the pub - twice in two weeks - and HAS been constructive. Amazing. The first in fouteen years. edited by: J Mark Dodds at: 08/07/2009 22:15:32 This post replies to Columbo > RE: Tuppen: ‘We’d pay £100k to new body’ |
|
| Columbo 08/07/2009 22:16:24 |
RE: Tuppen: ‘We’d pay £100k to new body’ Perhaps Mark they realise that it is the only way forward. It is a great shame that some of the other pubcos are not doing the same, althoug I believe Punch are trying to move forward by meeting up Fair Pint next week. It is just Enterprise Inns now who seem to not want to change. This post replies to J Mark Dodds > RE: Tuppen: ‘We’d pay £100k to new body’ |
|
| info man 09/07/2009 01:21:44 |
RE: Tuppen: ‘We’d pay £100k to new body’ That is what he said, i couldnt believe it, pure window dressing , nothing has changed. I wish Enterprise would prove me wrong but it seems that this kind of fundamental change in policy, moving away from saying one thing and doing the opposite will not happen unless forced. This post replies to Columbo > RE: Tuppen: ‘We’d pay £100k to new body’ |
|
| Inez Ward 09/07/2009 01:34:10 |
RE: Tuppen: ‘We’d pay £100k to new body’ Why the surprise? We all know what they are like, we all understand the smoke, mirrors and spin, we've seen it often enough lol. If they cannot admit that they may have done wrong, if they cannot see what is transpiring, if they will not listen, if they will not change, if they do not care then why should we? There will be change whether they like it or not, it's going to happen and there is absolutely nothing that they can do about it. It is a matter of evolution and they will evolve or they will become extinct. They should have listened and they should have acted, but they didn't. I have to wonder at the sense of it all, how could anybody believe that they could continue to treat the foundations of their own business model the way they did without the foundations crumbling? This post replies to info man > RE: Tuppen: ‘We’d pay £100k to new body’ |
|
