List of all posts by user:

Sorry to hear your problems Dennis. Was the pub in the photo yours ? The Carpenters Arms ? or is it just a coincidence that your story fits that pubs history. Just shows there must be hundreds out there suffering the same. What I can not believe is that Government, analysts and the City are unable to see Pubco's for what they are, Property Companies taking advantage of a property value loophole - the development value of any one pub being considerably more than its value as a pub, and the Pubco model for what it is - a scam ! A great scam, but a scam all the same, to simply buy cheap property have someone else sponsor the purchase - us - and then, when squeezed till theres no blood left, sold for redevelopment and a healthy profit to buy more pubs. When will people realise Pubco's care nothing for Pubs just the income they can achieve. I know many Enterprise lessees, I know none 'coping well'. I urge all Enterprise Inns lessees to join Fair Pint and at the same time write in to the MA and tell them just how well you are coping - perhaps then the MA will stop offering Mr. Tuppen space to tout his propaganda.

Sorry Roger but you seem to have a rose tinted view of the current pub situation. Forgetting the fact that the two St Albans pubs have main road frontages to a busy 'A' road and therefore benefit from a passing trade, I have to mention the Scarbrough Hotel to all those envious tenants out there wondering what they are doing wrong. Roger neglected to mention that the Scarbrough Arms is directly opposite the entrance to Leeds Mainline train station. Its busy - no s**t Sherlock. Stephen Corbet hits the nail on the head, many pubs can be busy but are the licensees working all hours god sends for no return. I have a fairly busy London pub, 400 barrels, but am struggling to financially keep my head above water. I don't want a concessionary rent I want a fair rent reflecting the financial capabilities of the pub. The Pubco's get it both ways high rent and trade tie. It is already too late for 27 pubs per week and many more to come, articles like Rogers only serve to demonstrate ignorance of reality and I find it unbelievable that those at MA knows so little to waste a page on Rogers out of touch opinion.

The Pubco codes all vary but the ones I have seen are blissfully vague. How many tenants out there have had a genuinely transparent rent calculation, where the pubco substantiate each and every variable. Oh sure, you get a computer print out telling you how the calculation works (e.g. 10 x 10 + 100, no dispute there so it must be right, but where do the 10's come from ?) They should be pushed to prove every variable is appropriate not just the best they can find. The Eagle Ale House asked their Pubco repeatedly for evidence to substantiate the quoted 34% increase over commencing rent five years previous at review and as the Pubco could not provide it the tenants forced the issue to Arbitration - the result even with a result unsatisfactory to the tenants they achieved a 12% reduction on rent passing. If you want more details on how achieved speak to SIMON at The Eagle (02072282328) he is always happy to help.

Nigel - RICS Paper 2 highly questionable ?, well, you have to be pointing the finger at the Trading Related Valuation Committee, who advise the RICS on such issues, they must be unbiased mustn't they ?. A Committee of market experts advising on how to value pubs, oh, did I mention the Chairman is Rob May (Enterprise Inns), unbiased - yeah right. Back to the problem at hand, the freeholders valuer should not be using actual accounts (indeed there is case law excluding it from valuations) but oddly enough they still use tenants actual barrelage to establish a fair maintainable turnover (if you can call it that). Unfortunately, the other part of that calculation involves a 'rate per barrel'(barrelage x rate per barrel = fair maintainable turnover) which you will be told is an extremely complex mathematical equation - cobblers - this is the excuse for maintaining a degree of mystery on a figure that is more often than not plucked from thin air to suit the rental required. Truth is if their were sufficient alternative leases available no one would accept the big Pubco lease terms but as they have a strangle hold on the pubs available, are selling any pubs (for a tidy profit) that suit change of use and put restrictive covenants on any freeholds they sell, the prospective tenant, naive or not, has little choice but to have a go - sadly often loosing their shirts.

First sorry for this forum number thing - I keep trying to alter it to Robin Wright but there seems to be an error in the system. Second, no, Ken and I are not the same person, in the main I consider his views less than helpful and little more than red herrings which unfortunately other members seize upon and respond to, but every once in a blue moon I think he has a point. If forum users don't like what he says then just ignore it lets not become a school play ground where headmaster Ewan keeps having to step in and stop petty squabbles. On a more serious note, Nigel, surveyors are supposed to value on the basis of the lease terms, which generally include the phrase assuming a reasonably competent operator. They are not supposed to value on the basis of the actual accounts as these may be better or worse than a reasonably competent operator. So how is this operator, well, it should be established by comparing other operators making reasonable adjustments for location, lease terms, tie etc. Our Pubco chums obviously will ask you for your accounts and if they are better than expected will use them, if worse they will find some other figures which are more often than not pie in the sky. Yes, surveyors should get some pub operating experience, they would then know the differences of likely GP for a pub which is fully tied, part tied or free. Speak to Simon Clarke at The Eagle if you wnat to know more (he's the one who took Enterprise to Arbitration and got a 12% rent reduction !! - he is a surveyor and publican)