James Wilmore: Is the BBPA a house of cards?
How long can the British Beer & Pub Association (BBPA) survive in its current form?
Rumours have been circulating for some time that one of the "Big Four" brewers are planning to quit the group.
And a more recent rumour is one of the major pubcos will join Greene King in making an exit. It would not be a surprise.
Taking a clinical look at the BBPA's current membership throws up myriad and serious conflicts of interest. Among the group's 72 corporate members are big brewers, family brewers, pubcos with thousands of pubs, and companies with a handful of pubs.
So how can such an organisation represent all these interests? These conflicts have existed for a while now, but at least one, seems to be reaching a boiling point.
Reports from the last BBPA full council meeting earlier this month suggest things got seriously heated. These council meetings are normally fairly sedate affairs, but apparently this one caught fire over the issue of supermarket-bashing on cheap alcohol, and minimum pricing.
Other issues are the beer tie and beer duty, but more of these later.
The BBPA hierarchy admits it is in a difficult position over the supermarkets and minimum pricing. It's not helped by the fact that some members have publicly endorsed minimum pricing, while others have spoken out against it.
Fuller's, whose chairman Michael Turner is a former BBPA chairman, came out in favour of minimum pricing last month, as it's unconvinced a below-cost ban would make a difference.
And Greene King's chief Rooney Anand recently backed the measure - and perhaps offers a clue to why his company left. There must be other BBPA members who favour the proposal, as it will help pubs.
But, as a group, the BBPA has singularly failed to speak out in favour of a floor price.
With a significant number of its members increasingly reliant on returns from their products in the off-trade this position is, at least, understandable.
BBPA members such as SAB Miller and Heineken have publicly opposed minimum pricing, while Molson Coors is in favour, thus forcing the group to adopt a Switzerland-like position on the issue.
The beer tie
And so to the beer tie. Small, family-owned vertically-integrated brewers are desperate for the tie to stay, understandably.
So, it must be a source of intense frustration that some of the big pubcos have given this business model such a bad name. And the fact that most MPs and ministers see the tie and the pubcos as one entity must do little to brighten the mornings of brewers with smallish pub estates.
The extra workload brought about by these companies having to re-write their codes to satisfy MPs has also not gone down well. The continued struggle to find new tenants, no doubt turned off by national media reports of "nasty" pubcos, cannot help either.
Furthermore the continued lack of success on lobbying over fairer treatment on beer duty must be leaving some members questioning whether their membership fee is justifiable.
My guess is that pubco members, at least, are sticking with the BBPA until politicians finish their health check of the model toward the second half of next year. A kind of united we stand, divided we fall attitude.
But after this, with the pub and alcohol market having shrunk further by this time, there will be tough economic decisions to be made about how representative the BBPA remains of "the industry".
Perhaps we will once again see national brewers go off and form their own group - and let the rest get on with it. Many may already be wishing, or planning, for this day.
