Aizoon Posted November 19, 2014 Report Share Posted November 19, 2014 It's being proposed that pubs should be allowed to buy their beer and cider from whoever they like. Will this result in cheaper booze - Hooray! Or result in more pubcos selling off their buldings for supermarkets and yuppie flats - Boo! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
... Posted November 19, 2014 Report Share Posted November 19, 2014 Who, FFS, is going to vote NO in this poll?? TFR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aizoon Posted November 19, 2014 Author Report Share Posted November 19, 2014 Who, FFS, is going to vote NO in this poll?? TFR All depends, I guess. If you live in a village with just one pub, you might be more concerned about it being closed than about cheaper booze.. Don't forget CAMRA campaigned for ages to untie pubs from breweries - that went well, didn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRL Posted November 19, 2014 Report Share Posted November 19, 2014 Who, FFS, is going to vote NO in this poll?? TFR Redeye... If he ever appears again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aizoon Posted November 19, 2014 Author Report Share Posted November 19, 2014 If he does, it'll be YOUR fault Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1960maaan Posted November 19, 2014 Report Share Posted November 19, 2014 In the olden days, when there was a very limited choice of lagers and ciders, I used to love finding free house. Guaranteed a decent quality drink. Different now most pubs have a lager or cider that's worth drinking. There are still exceptions mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eddie Hitler Posted November 19, 2014 Report Share Posted November 19, 2014 There have been so many cases of breweries screwing over landlords that serious reform was needed. If they had behaved better then there would not have been a need for legal change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fordy62 Posted November 20, 2014 Report Share Posted November 20, 2014 Who, FFS, is going to vote NO in this poll?? TFR Just for you mate. Just for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
... Posted November 20, 2014 Report Share Posted November 20, 2014 Decent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhistleHappy Posted November 20, 2014 Report Share Posted November 20, 2014 If the landlord can't be arsed neither can I ....... Why would anyone pay good money for a beer in an untidy pub? (if I want to drink in a messy place I'd stay home with a few cheap tinnies) No Pubs Should Not Be Untidy imo . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddevon Posted November 20, 2014 Report Share Posted November 20, 2014 I struggled with voting on this one. Tied or not, the price of your pint will depend on many more factors including the economics of the area, footfall and competition. My partner has "leased" many tied houses, some where a favourable rent has offset the additional cost of beer, and others where there is a partial tie. of course living accommodation is also usually included. In the village where we now live (retired before the smoking ban) all the remaining (5) pubs are freehold as were three others now closed. The beer locally is not cheap and prices are akin to a cartel. Those that have held the freehold in the family for a long period make a good living. Those that have had to borrow on a mortgage not so. It's not the freehold value that keeps you afloat, its the cashflow especlally where a seasonal trade exists. If you want cheap beer, there is always "Spoons"! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red-Robbo Posted November 21, 2014 Report Share Posted November 21, 2014 Pubcos are responsible for the death of more pubs than anything else. When tied houses were brewery estates, the parent firm had a vested interest in maintaining outlets for its produce open. Now these Pubcos - often owned by "vulture" venture capitalism firms - are happy to shut outlets at the drop of a hat if they feel they can get a quick profit from selling for housing. When landlords are successful at generating profits, the pubco simply hikes the rent to unsustainable levels, the aim being to soak as much cash from the hapless tenant in as short a time as possible. If this ends with the community losing a pub that had served it for hundreds of years, why would that concern the faceless owners in their City cigar bars? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
... Posted November 21, 2014 Report Share Posted November 21, 2014 Wot about cats in pubs, Red-Robbo? 'The elephant in the room' Discuss. TFR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aizoon Posted November 22, 2014 Author Report Share Posted November 22, 2014 Pubcos are responsible for the death of more pubs than anything else. When tied houses were brewery estates, the parent firm had a vested interest in maintaining outlets for its produce open. Now these Pubcos - often owned by "vulture" venture capitalism firms - are happy to shut outlets at the drop of a hat if they feel they can get a quick profit from selling for housing. When landlords are successful at generating profits, the pubco simply hikes the rent to unsustainable levels, the aim being to soak as much cash from the hapless tenant in as short a time as possible. If this ends with the community losing a pub that had served it for hundreds of years, why would that concern the faceless owners in their City cigar bars? This + several million Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red-Robbo Posted November 22, 2014 Report Share Posted November 22, 2014 Wot about cats in pubs, Red-Robbo? 'The elephant in the room' Discuss. TFR Should be encouraged IMO, but they do not do as good a job of hoovering up carelessly discarded pub snacks as dogs, admittedly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotham Brow Red Posted November 22, 2014 Report Share Posted November 22, 2014 Pubcos essentially created landowners where the emphasis is on landlordship rather than establishing a successful pub business hence the rake in rent and beer prices. However what concerns me us Enterprise/Punch et al may now insert other financial caveats to New licencees going forward like increased insurance or orther liabilities to claim back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aizoon Posted November 23, 2014 Author Report Share Posted November 23, 2014 Should be encouraged IMO, but they do not do as good a job of hoovering up carelessly discarded pub snacks as dogs, admittedly. There was an odd but friendly pub in Truro where the pub dog lived at floor level and the pub cat lived on a sort of extended picture rail or very high shelf. Seemed to suit them, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickJ Posted November 25, 2014 Report Share Posted November 25, 2014 As someone who has relentlessly campaigned for the past 2 years to prevent my village local (in fact I live next door to it) being granted change of use to residential, I claim some expertise on this subject. You have to differentiate between the PubCos and the breweries. Problem is most people don't appreciate there is a difference. In my own way, I endorse the words of Red-Robbo - PubCos are *****. In rural areas, if you see a well managed, up together pub serving a decent range of quality drinks and/or food, chance are the freehold is owned by a small, local, independent. If you see a shithole serving nothing but John Smiths and Carling, its almost certainly owned by Admiral, Punch, or Enterprise. Those ***** will, in the long term, kill the pub in rural areas, if they are allowed to. We have recently succeeded in having Asset of Community Value status conferred on our pub. That only gives limited protection however. There is still a chance the owner - he purchased from Admiral - could persuade the planners that the pub is not viable as a pub, on the basis of what has happened to the pub over the past 15 years of Admiral's ownership. A pub free of tie would have been an entirely different animal. NOT lower prices, but more profitable to the operator of the pub and hence demonstrably viable. The Beer Orders of the 1980's forced breweries to sell off thousands of pubs - so they just set up property companies to own them instead. Over the years these over geared companies have bought and sold vast swathes of pubs, each time taking on more debt. The result is the PubCo's do not have the funds to maintain pubs to a decent standard even if they wanted to - which they don't, because it is easier and more lucrative to run them into the ground and then sell as a development opportunity. Without a doubt, not only should pub operators be freed of the PubCo tie, but pubs themselves should be better protected against development than they are now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.