List of all posts by user:
martin kay 07/09/2008 17:46:31  |
Enterprise are DEEP in the REIT > Enterprise are DEEP in the REIT
I suspect the answer is, "if" then you would have your same contract and obligations but with a new financial landlord. |
| martin kay 05/09/2008 21:08:28 |
Pubcos "bend over backward" > Pubcos bend etc.
With due respect to a number of posters, Mr BG did not write the article; the MA did. If one were to read the full Fleurets report it would make more sense. Don't worry about BG on the roadshows; he is more than capable of holding his own. |
| martin kay 05/09/2008 17:45:54 |
3D moves sites to tenancy to reduce losses > RE: 3D moves sites to tenancy to reduce losses
Seems a good opportunity for local operaters who fancy their chances and who can probably do an awful lot better than the Corporate. What the article perhaps omits is what happens after a sucessful first year. Is it a renegotiation of terms (up rent for succes) or pre agreed? I would think that anyone would want to know "what happens next" if it all works out? |
| martin kay 04/09/2008 17:19:37 |
Pubcos "bend over backwards" over rents > RE: Pubcos
I have no idea what this post is trying to say. The article suggests that FOT landlords are arguing for increases whilst tied co's are settling. Which was the second relevant point? |
| martin kay 03/09/2008 17:15:40 |
Fit to be tied? > Fit to be tied?
Gilbert, It seems that unless the only thing you do is to change light bulbs, then you have conversations with your BDM on more than barcodes. I don't understand your point on illegal price fixing; they generally charge brewers wholesale price list, which is exactly what they commited to you? |
| martin kay 02/09/2008 18:52:02 |
RE: Coors adds 3p to a pint > RE: Coors adds 3p to a pint
Peter, as a matter of interest which lagers will you stock? |
| martin kay 02/09/2008 18:38:33 |
Fit to be tied? > Fit to be tied?
Enforcement only if there is something to be enforced, ie develop business with willing partners as oppossed to cheats who breach a contract. Without the tie, you are correct, these Co's become property companies who will likely be bought by a property company who will have little interest in tea and sympathy. See Wellington. It is said "illegal"; which law? |
| martin kay 02/09/2008 10:41:15 |
Fit to be tied? > RE: Fit to be tied?
I thought Clive would know better. It's tempting to correct his asertions on how rent would be reviewed, but this has been well covered elsewhere before. Dealing with his assertion that all contracts will need to be renegotiated from scratch and tenants cannot drop out the bits they like, then this is simply wrong. The tie is one of many obligations of the agreement that the tenant is obliged to follow. If the agreement allows (and most do) the landlord to unilaterally release this obligation there would usually also be the right have a financial review. This would generally be a interim open market rent review, although it is not inconceivable that some leases may specify another form of recompense. In the absence of any such mechanisms, then the tie obligation simply becomes unenforceable by law, and that is the end of the matter; no renegotiations required at all. The next cyclical review would of course reflect FOT profitability as would the interim review mentionned above. Sorry Clive, but totally misleading and inaccurate comments from you. |
| martin kay 01/09/2008 18:42:58 |
Guinness campaign to boost pub visits > RE: Guinness campaign to boost pub visits
One cannot knock the strategy. Massive spending on marketting allied with high margins/ prices. Clever Company with arguably the only "must stock" beer in the on trade. |
| martin kay 01/09/2008 18:15:23 |
Guinness campaign to boost pub visits > RE: Guinness campaign to boost pub visits
One cannot knock the strategy. Massive spending on marketting allied with high margins/ prices. Clever Company with arguably the only "must stock" beer in the on trade. |