- Morning Advertiser >
- Forums >
- News Article Comments >
- Luff "suspicious" of pubco promises
News Article Comments : Luff "suspicious" of pubco promises
The MP heading a new probe into recent industry promises to improve the lot of tenants is “very suspicious” of the undertakings from pubcos.
Peter Luff said pubcos are “emphatically not off the hook” after the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) declined to act on the beer tie - and stressed that the new study will be about whether pubcos can be trusted.
Luff, chairman of the Business, Innovation & Skills Committee (BISC), formerly the Business & Enterprise Committee (BEC), spoke to the Morning Advertiser as BISC announced it would question trade chiefs again during an oral session on 8 December.
The focus will be on action taken since the damning BEC report was released in the summer. In particular:
- The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors’ (RICS) proposed reforms to make the rent-setting process more transparent
- The British Beer and Pub Association’s (BBPA) new code on tenancies and leases, which promises a better deal for tenants from 1 January
- The BII-led, low-cost rent ar
29 Posts(s) found for this thread: Now displaying page 2 of 3
| Author Name | Opinion | Reply |
|---|---|---|
Karl Harrison 04/11/2009 05:51:55  |
"Sam" is right about the OFT but it isn't hard to be right about the OFT. They have failed consistently to identify, in any sort of timely or effective manner, any issues of an unfair or anti-competitive sort, in any sector. There was virtually never any possibility at all of the OFT finding any favour with the CAMRA Supercomplaint. The OFT, in this case led by the inept Simon Williams, was only interested in covering their tracks from previous cockk-ups in 2004 and 2000. In the recent case of cover pricing in the construction sector it would appear to have taken decades for the likes of Mr Williams and his merry band of not too bright young things at the Office of Futility and Timidity, to identify something that was going on all the time right under their noses. Lacking any investigative ability at all the OFT has relied on little more than confessions from those involved in cartell behaviour and who want to evade fines. Useless. I asked around recently for alternative interpretations for OFT. Favourite so far is 'Oh !@*! Them'. Please feel free to suggest others. edited by: Karl Harrison at: 04/11/2009 05:52:22 This post replies to this thread |
|
Chris Wright 04/11/2009 08:54:15 |
On Fence Today ? This post replies to Karl Harrison > Luff Suspicious |
|
| Robert Feal-Martinez 04/11/2009 09:43:04 |
I am afraid some simply don't get it. The BBPA/BII deal was the Pubco's get out of jail card. How can Neil Robertson now appear before the Select Committee and say he doesn't believe the motives of the Pubco's are genuine. He can't of course. Where does that leave the Select Committee, dismiss the trades professional bodies evidence out of hand?. My view is that the BII have been led by the nose. I know of lots of members who will not be renewing they argue there simply is no longer any point in an organisation that will not speak for it's membership, when much of the training is being done by other organisations and by HMG itself, through it's various schemes. This post replies to this thread |
|
| info man 04/11/2009 10:15:19 |
The BII are claiming their actions are righteous whilst admiting that the pubcos have not adherred to their codes of practice previously so where does that leave their position? Their admittion of doing deals with the pubcos which are completely confidential shows that there have been breaches yet the same pubcos still remain with the BIIs stamp of approval. You make an interesting point on the training as it is available pretty much anywhere. I do not know what the BEC would make of the BIIs position given the evidence previously given which has already cast a doubt over the BIIs role. I can't give my OFT idea due to taste and it would get pulled. This post replies to Robert Feal-Martinez > They Simple Don't Get it. |
|
| Robert Feal-Martinez 04/11/2009 10:31:08 |
info, the OFT are never going to come down in favour of the lessee. The same situation exists over SKY. How they can possibly contend SKY do not have a monopoly is frankly laughable, but they have concluded that 3 or 4 times. This post replies to info man > They Simple Don't Get it. |
|
| Rachael Barnes 04/11/2009 11:52:53 |
Robert, Sky a monopoly??! Can you explain your definition of monopoly? This post replies to Robert Feal-Martinez > They Simple Don't Get it. |
|
| Stephen Docking 04/11/2009 11:57:57 |
Rachel, the thread is about Mr Luff's suspicions regarding pubcos. Some would consider it monopolistic to divert a thread, don't you think? This post replies to Rachael Barnes > They Simple Don't Get it. |
|
| Robert Feal-Martinez 04/11/2009 12:37:33 |
In economics/commerce, a monopoly exists when a specific individual or an enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it. That is SKY. SKY control literally dozens of sporting events. That is a monopoly. I would accept that there are now free to view events, but the basic principle still applies. This post replies to Rachael Barnes > They Simple Don't Get it. |
|
| Rachael Barnes 04/11/2009 13:00:19 |
Robert, I think you'll find that it is the SPORTS governing bodies that have the monopoly over their sports. They decide to sell their broadcast rights to the highest bidder and whoever pays the most wins (e.g. BBC won the F1 rights this year). There is intense competition to win those rights among a wide range of bidders. That is not a monopoly. Sky's business is to attract the maximum number of subscribers and viewers to its platform by buying rights to the most attractive programming it can. Just the same as every other broadcaster. Like ITV have exclusive rights to the X Factor, the BBC have exclusive rights to Strictly and MTV have exclusive rights to Cribs.... are they monopolies? This post replies to Robert Feal-Martinez > They Simple Don't Get it. |
|
| Rachael Barnes 04/11/2009 13:42:34 |
ITV will be showing the Liverpool match tonight, no one else will, or can. BBC showed the Grand Prix at the weekend, no one else did, or could. It was the Premier League's decision to sell its rights in this way. A number of different packages, with exclusive rights on each, that have been bought by Sky, ESPN and the BBC. They could have sold the same matches to all broadcasters. Of course, they wouldn't have got half as much money had they done so. It's quite simple really, competition in broadcasting, entertainment and music is all about securing rights. Companies pay vast sums of money to secure exclusivity on rights packages. All broadcasting, entertainment and music works in this way - you can't buy Alexandra Burke's music from anyone but Simon Cowell's company. This post replies to Stephen Docking > They Simple Don't Get it. |
|
