- Morning Advertiser >
- Forums >
- News Article Comments >
- Tied pub model is 'less risky'
News Article Comments : Tied pub model is 'less risky'
The tied pub model is "less risky" than the alternatives, according to multiple operator Matt Saunders of the 11-strong Derby-based Fat Cat group.
Saunders defended the tied model in a BBC Radio Five Live debate on pub closures yesterday.
Saunders, whose company and sister company Moleface Pub Company has several Punch and Enterprise leased sites along with free of tie venues, added that he felt both systems worked.
But he said the tied model was a "less risky system" given it operated like a step rental model, with a lower base rent, which was topped up by way of the beer tie.
Defending the tie
British Beer & Pub Association chief executive Brigid Simmonds clashed with Paul Maloney of the GMB trade union, who claimed tied tenants were at a distinct disadvantage.
Simmonds denied that tied pub tenants are financially worse off than free of tie tenants in a live radio debate.
She added that tied pubs were a great way for entrepreneurs to get into business.
Maloney said pub c
28 Posts(s) found for this thread: Now displaying page 1 of 3
| Author Name | Opinion | Reply |
|---|---|---|
J Mark Dodds 05/02/2010 09:47:43 |
RE: Tied pub model is 'less risky' Strange this statement by Matt Saunders. It just does not make sense. Unless he has side deals with Enterprise and Punch he's paying way over the odds for his supply and likely to be paying rent which is at least equivalent or higher than the free of tie pubs - and the pubcos are taking more than half his divisible balance - none of which applies with the free outlets. Unless his free of tie places are leased and he's paying stupid rents none of it makes sense. How about inviting Matt to elaborate in an in depth article Ewan? edited by: J Mark Dodds at: 05/02/2010 09:48:20 This post replies to this thread |
|
info man 05/02/2010 09:48:44 |
RE: Tied pub model is 'less risky' I think this is absolute nonsence with the principle of the tie being wheeled out as fact when the truth is quite different. A competition comission is the only way to resolve this combined with enshrining the principle that the tied tenant should be no worse off than free of tie tenant. I would like to know more information as asked for in the post above as it defies all logic. edited by: info man at: 05/02/2010 09:50:23 This post replies to J Mark Dodds > RE: Tied pub model is 'less risky' |
|
| Robert Feal-Martinez 05/02/2010 09:48:25 |
RE: Tied pub model is 'less risky' Lower base rate, he's having a laugh. They only appear lower, because the property values have been inflated. Ted Tuppen made that same ludicrous claim a few years ago at a BII conference in Tewkesbury. Much as now, at that time experienced licensees present were fuming as we weren't allowed to challenge him on his statement. This post replies to this thread |
|
Ewan Turney 05/02/2010 09:48:56 |
RE: Tied pub model is 'less risky' Mark, good idea. We'll ask him. Ewan This post replies to J Mark Dodds > RE: Tied pub model is 'less risky' |
|
| J Mark Dodds 05/02/2010 09:49:52 |
RE: Tied pub model is 'less risky' Bob, even the sea cannot challenge Tuppen - when he says STOP! waves retreat, Business Enterprise Committees shrink into the shadows and tied tenants surrender their leases willingly. This post replies to Robert Feal-Martinez > RE: Tied pub model is 'less risky' |
|
| J Mark Dodds 05/02/2010 09:53:09 |
RE: Tied pub model is 'less risky' Thanks Ewan. A belated happy birthday by the way. This post replies to Ewan Turney > RE: Tied pub model is 'less risky' |
|
| Gilbert Bank 05/02/2010 10:33:48 |
Tied pub model is 'less risky' I love the transparency of all this. Its like there has been no problems with the industry and its all down to the incompetent operators. Again. Well, somebody picks thos operators, so they cannot be too good at their job. Perhaps 50% division of losses might focus their attention, and prove their business model works. They have sacrificial lambs in place. The area "damagers". Valhalla awaits. This post replies to this thread |
|
peter giles 05/02/2010 10:40:25 |
Tied pub model is 'less risky' How did this man who runs cafe bars get invited in a debate on the Tie? Call me cynical but Derby is very close to burton. Or maybe Steve Haslam was to obvious a choice, stinks of disinformation and spin. This post replies to this thread |
|
| Richard Yates 05/02/2010 11:40:02 |
Tied pub model is 'less risky' Wasn't there a different article initially? Or was I dreaming when I posted a reply to that...where has it all gone? Anyway for the record, if Brigid Simmons is so sure that the tied tenant is no worse off than the free of tie tenant enshrine it in your framework code of practice. You won't because your pubco masters will not allow you to, why? Because they know it is rubbish and. Here's a challenge brigi, if you believe it, make it a principle of your code of practice and let's see how many pubco members you have left at the end of the year. This post replies to this thread |
|
| Robert Feal-Martinez 05/02/2010 11:55:57 |
Tied pub model is 'less risky' Fair point Ewan where did the other one go. Did BBPA and Ted Complain already. This post replies to Richard Yates > Tied pub model is 'less risky' |
|
