Mark Daniels: Pub Revolution? Or PubCo Revolution?

Has anybody noticed that when you mention the phrase Beer Tie, two names have become inextricably linked with it?

Whenever we read through the stories about how the Beer Tie is destroying the pub trade we read how rental contracts and beer prices are penalising those who've bought in to the industry via a Tied contract.

Statistics of 52 pubs closing each week are loosely bandied about without referring directly to each pub's individual problem. We read of a growing group of dissident landlords who have set up a group called Pub Revolution and have vowed to boycott their rent and stock obligations in order to bring down the pubcos that are strangling their chance of making a profit. And each time we read these stories, the same two company names come to the fore every time. One usually more prolific than the other.

A report in yesterday's Liverpool Echo tells the story of Angela Bennett, beleaguered landlady of The Brooke Hotel in Crosby, who is expecting bailiffs to turn up today after joining Pub Revolution and taking part in the rent and stock boycott the group is encouraging. And again, one of these two names has appeared in print alongside the story...

Indeed, if I were an outsider looking in at the moment, it wouldn't be the Beer Tie that put me off buying in to this trade, but instead it would be the thought of dealing with one of these two pub companies.

I am, of course, talking about Enterprise Inns and Punch Taverns, the two companies whose very names appear to have become synonymous with the term 'Beer Tie'.

Now, I can't personally talk about either company's trading agreements, their contracts, the rental prices or the trade price of their products, because I have never had any dealings with either of them - it would, therefore, be unfair of me to make any comment on these. But, as an industry, we do have to be careful about how we're positioning the Tie with the public and, more specifically, those we are hoping will help the tyrannical grip it has on our industry be resolved.

I've oft-mentioned in the past that, as a tied licensee, I agree I don't make the level of margin that the free-of-tie division do, but equally I haven't invested as much - or borrowed as much - in order to buy that luxury. It is the trade-off between the two sides to the industry. I also have a fairly amicable working relationship with the company behind my Tie; we don't see eye-to-eye on every part of the business, but that is simply the nature of the beast. Most issues get resolved, one way or another, and I've been supported on several projects throughout the year to help ensure my business continues to survive.

I don't wish to harp on about that, especially in the face of many who are not getting the same benefits, but I am sure I can't be the only Tied landlord in the country to feel this way.

I am all in favour of amendment to the Tie and I support wholeheartedly the actions of many who are looking to simply get a better life for themselves but, when challenging the system and potentially landing yourself in court, the results of your hard labour stripped bare for all to see, you have to ask yourself this question:

Is it the Beer Tie that is causing harm to our industry and hard working landlords to suffer financially, even losing their homes and livelihoods? Or is it the trading practices of two specific companies?