GOVERNMENT CONSULTATION ON PUB COMPANIES AND TENANTS RESPONSE TO OFT SUBMISSION DATED 14TH JUNE 2013
Fair Pint Campaign consider there are some fundamental flaws in the OFT's understanding of how the tied pub sector currently operates and the Government proposals to deliver fairness and circumstances where a tied tenant would be no worse off than if they were free of tie.
The OFT have said in the past that they do not consider the artificial market environment of a supply tie of beer to tied tenants raises any competition issues, they are now suggesting that the tenants choice to stay in the artificial environment or step outside it, in to an open market, would have competition issues.
COMPETITION
Despite the proposed intervention being on the grounds of the relationship between landlord and tenant, and not competition, the OFT do raise an important competition issue. Their previous conclusions in respect of the beer supply tie were established in 2010, since then legislation has changed requiring that Land Agreements (of which the supply tie would be one) need to be competitive and now fall under the Competition Act 1998. Anti competitive land agreements, or provisions within them, are now prohibited restrictions.
Fair Pint Campaign believe some supply ties would now be considered prohibited restrictions, and do not comply with the criteria for exemption, and the OFT should be reconsidering their previous findings in the light of these changes.
OFT CONCERNS TO THE PUBLIC CONSULTATION
The OFT stated in their submission they did not believe there would be a significant rental adjustment to rectify the perceived imbalance rendering the tied tenant no worse off than if they were free of tie. They then raise concern that the implementation of the "no worse off" principle may lead to significant rental adjustments. These two statements are contradictory and show a conflicting understanding of the 'no worse off' principle.
The OFT demonstrate a clear misunderstanding of the circumstances that prevail. To close a pub it must be vacated. Most tenants have a degree of protection from eviction by legislation. It is tied terms that circumvent that protection. The Government proposals would make it much harder to evict a tied tenant and offer them the similar protection to that enjoyed by practically all other commercial tenants in the UK.
The OFT also expressly indicate their understanding that price regulation is being proposed - IT IS NOT.
There are around 1,000 brewers in the UK and despite some large non brewing pub companies allowing sourcing from a small handful of them the vast majority are restrained from participating in around 40% of the UK's pubs. The OFT, even in their latest work, have failed to recognise this fact.
Contrary to the OFT understanding, the benefits of central purchasing by large pub companies are NOT passed on to the tenants and in turn the consumer does NOT benefit. If products and services were genuinely cheaper through the pub company, due to the benefits of central purchasing, then a tenant would choose to acquire them from the pub company not be forced to acquire them by mandatory lease provisions.
The original contractual nature of agreement between landlord and tenant is that the higher tied product prices would be fairly balanced by benefits (special commercial or financial advantages - SCORFA). The pub companies have altered the nature of the contract between the parties by undermining the balance taking too much in rent whilst over charging on tied product prices and offering little if any other countervailing benefits. The intention of Government intervention is to redress that balance and restore the 'fair' nature of the contract between the parties NOT to alter it as the OFT have concluded.
The OFT have demonstrated an incredibly naive perception of how the pub sector operates and the failings within it and seemingly relied almost entirely (again) on the information submitted to them by the pub companies and their representatives.
FAIR PINT CAMPAIGN
Simon Clarke
Steve Corbett
Wednesday, 15 January 2014
Monday, 23 December 2013
24 Hours to prove I’m not a troll!
24 Hours to prove I’m not a troll!
Nothing
surprises me anymore when it comes to UK brewers and pubcos - I’ve been around
too long to let their nonsense slip by unnoticed. Sadly, some still fall for
their crap and Propel journo Martyn Cornell seems to be one of them.
Last Friday Martyn and I got into an argument
on twitter after I called his pro pubco article on the recent London Economics
report on pubs inaccurate and delusional. He didn’t like it of course and gave me 24 to prove the report wrong or else become
a zythopilliac troll.
Here is the tweet exchange and my email to Martyn below,
More inaccurate, delusional gumph from @zythophiliac who feels important as he
continues to scrape of few crumbs of the pubco table.
@SteveC2712
"inaccurate, delusional gumph" isn't feedback, without evidence to
back that claim it's just you indulging in knee-jerk trolling
@zythophiliac claims of
"Trolling" are usually the first line of defence for those who know
their in the wrong.
@SteveC2712 Right, Steve -
send me a list of my inaccuracies and delusions. I'll give you 24 hours.
Otherwise you're just trolling.
Martin
Only 24 hours to supply you with rebuttal evidence or I become a troll?
A little harsh don’t you think Martin? The Fair Pint team are beavering away on
the LE rebuttal document as we speak – it’s a tad too long at the moment but it
should be good to go shortly. Once complete I’ll send you a copy. BIS officials
broke up for the hols a couple of days ago so there’s no point rushing it off.
I note that you’re a beer historian so I expect you have some experience
of the sector. I think we can all lay some claim to experience of one sort or
another. It’s not the experience of the people in it that enrich a particular
sector but more how we choose to apply it and whether, despite the opinions we
form as a result of our experience, we can continue to develop and learn from
the experiences we continue to have and the new information that comes to hand.
Part of that process is understanding and accepting criticism. I’ve always
known that unpalatable views, delivered to us by people we might not like, can
still be right.
So where are we now? The consultation has turned into a farce if I’m
truthful, the BBPA had a game plan as they continue to play games with some
inexperienced BIS officials. The LE reports a shocker, full of inaccuracies and
guess work, all supplied and rubberstamped by the BBPA. Their plan in 3 parts
was:
1 Manipulate the
consultation
2 Avoid a statutory
code
3 Go skiing.
So how did they get on? Their plan was to get the RICS back on track –
which was always going to happen because of the conflicts within the TRVG –
squeeze the FLVA to say more fluffy nonsense - get the ALMR on the firm and
cherry pick as many tenants and brewers to hand write glowing testimonials.
All of that would give them a chance of scoring some points with the
usual damaging tosh about self-regulated codes of practice. Once achieved the
game plan was to present the whole sham as a fait accompli and to marginalise
other voices pushing for change. It’s embarrassing really.
And then there’s the real world. Pubs still failing at record rates for
reasons denied by people causing it and then helped in doing so by people who
should know better. The BBPA think it’s all jolly unfair that people with money
and dinner parties should be outed as the bullies they really are. Like the
idiot who fronts the PMA, I think you’re looking for goodwill where it doesn’t
exist. It’s a plausible assumption to expect a high degree of honesty and
integrity from those operating public limited companies. That degree of honesty
and integrity is lacking in some of the larger pub companies and I would say
that there are some in the media, you included, that are naive of these issues.
I’ve seen some awful things over the years many include tenants that have been
misled. Lies are told about trading histories and tenants are advised that they
don’t need legal advice. Punch used to offer to pay for a lawyer to represent
the tenant “no changes to the draft lease” were to be made. A great many people
have been subjected to this sort of treatment which looks substantially like
nothing more than a ‘timeshare’ type scam. Similar methodology seems to have
been applied to dealing with investors. As you know, the pubco model was
devised largely by people who are no longer connected with the sector and have
long since departed with the cash leaving billions that will never be repaid to
the bondholders and eye-watering interest bills that suck hundreds of millions
out of the sector every year. The model leaves the tenants unable to maintain
the building and the pubco cannot afford to either.
As for Fair Pint – we have been rightly critical of so called “leading
figures”. In my own view the likes of Ted Tuppen etc are little more than
overpaid frontmen for a scam that took place some time ago. The BBPA truly is a
risible organisation that has sold its soul to serve the interests of large
pubcos and the tie. Its annual rounds of pleading with the treasury, seen once
more today, look more and more ludicrous, whilst saving pubs and jobs is given
as a reason for the pleading little or nothing will be passed down to
publicans. A duty cut and removal of the escalator hasn’t stopped pubs closing
so I can’t expect the treasury will fall for that one again.
All in all it’s a mess Martin. The men that set up the pubcos never had
a long term interest in the sector but spotted legal loopholes, the greedy and
less intelligent brewers, the naive trade bodies etc. Down at Fair Pint towers
we are interested in the root of the industry. The publicans, the customers and
the small creative brewers. We want them to succeed. The tie and the
anti-competitive, monopolistic mess the pubcos have created make that very
uncertain as we all unfortunately know.
Forgive my ramblings. I suspect nothing I say matches the news of
Nigella Lawson.
Very best wishes.
S.
Andrew Griffiths MP and the Duty Scam
Andrew Griffiths Calls for an extensions of the beer duty freeze!
You can read his comments here:
http://www.thegrocer.co.uk/fmcg/mp-calls-for-extension-of-beer-duty-freeze/353091.article
My Response:
More delusional ‘gumph’ from Andrew Griffiths as he attempts to mislead hard working publicans and consumers into thinking a cut in duty will be passed down the line to pubs and beer drinkers. It won’t of course and Griffiths, acting in his role as M for Punch and Enterprise, knows this. Duty is paid at source by the producer. The producer decides whether to pass on a tax concession and of course they don’t. If they are forced into concessions by property owning pub companies – of the likes of zombies such as Enterprise Inns and Punch Taverns – then that company retains the benefit and pays it away in debt costs usually overseas to bondholders. In short, whether it is the treasury or Griffiths’ friends down the BBPA then someone will have their hand in the consumer’s pocket.
You can read his comments here:
http://www.thegrocer.co.uk/fmcg/mp-calls-for-extension-of-beer-duty-freeze/353091.article
My Response:
More delusional ‘gumph’ from Andrew Griffiths as he attempts to mislead hard working publicans and consumers into thinking a cut in duty will be passed down the line to pubs and beer drinkers. It won’t of course and Griffiths, acting in his role as M for Punch and Enterprise, knows this. Duty is paid at source by the producer. The producer decides whether to pass on a tax concession and of course they don’t. If they are forced into concessions by property owning pub companies – of the likes of zombies such as Enterprise Inns and Punch Taverns – then that company retains the benefit and pays it away in debt costs usually overseas to bondholders. In short, whether it is the treasury or Griffiths’ friends down the BBPA then someone will have their hand in the consumer’s pocket.
Wednesday, 18 December 2013
Caught Between A rock And A Hard Place!
Caught Between a Rock and a Hard Place
Is this more evidence that Cable & Co have absolutely no
idea what to do with the pubcos and the beer tie?
Consider this:
Whether tenants like it or not it is clear that whatever
government decide to do – even if that something is nothing – there will be
some form of collateral damage, albeit inadvertently, on parts of the sector.
If government legislate and give tenants a MRO or a ‘tied tenant no worse off’
then some pubcos may not survive it. Punch for example are teetering on the
brink of extinction and it will only take a small shove to send them over the
edge. Whilst I accept most tenants will be safeguarded by their lease
agreement, it still leaves an uncertain long term future for pubs as there may
not be an automatic right to renew especially if there is a mass pub jumble
sale.
And then we have other companies that currently do business
with the pubcos - brewers (family and micro) suppliers, maintenance
contractors, builders, logistic companies – the list is endless and many
companies/people will be affected by changes in legislation.
We would argue that pubs will still need the services of
these companies and that is of course correct but we all must agree there will
most definitely be fall out if government legislate and much of it will not be
pretty.
So back to Government’s dilemma.
I expect they realise the above and find themselves firmly
between a rock and hard place: help small businesses and there will be
collateral damage, much of it ugly and backed up I expect with legal challenges,
or do nothing and continue to see pubs close, tens of thousands of people lose
their jobs with ex publicans and their families relying on state handouts.
My point I suppose is they’v e left it too long to make
change. They had the perfect opportunity
in 2004 but failed (just like the beer orders) to make adequate provision for
the sector as a whole and whatever they do now, almost ten years later, will
undoubtedly have serious consequences for parts of the sector.
Fair Pint were right; the beer tie doesn’t work – I would
argue it never has – and Cable & Co, even if we were to imagine there are
no dark forces in play, must be struggling with the situation they now find
themselves in. It’s simple really, whatever they do they lose either way.
For my part I say burn the bastards. They’ve taken too
much already!
Tuesday, 26 November 2013
The truth about pub closures - BBPA lies exposed.
Pub Closures: the truth
PUB CLOSURES: THE TRUTH
Parliamentary Save the Pub Group publishes figures and report to show that Government has been misled & that as many pubco pubs close, freehouses open
The All Party Parliamentary Save the Pub Group have published a report which shows that CGA Strategy’s figures on pub closures – and other figures – clearly show that the non-managed (largely leased/tenanted) sector has seen many more net closures than those of independent freehouses – the opposite of what the British Beer and Pub Association (BBPA) and the pubcos have tried to claim is the case.
The report, which is based on data and ongoing correspondence from CGA Strategy, who compile data on pub closures, include CGA’s own figures between December 2005 and March 2013 which show a net closure rate of 15.9% (5,117) for Non-Managed pubs (mostly leased and tenanted) and only 9.5% (2,131) for independent trade pubs.
This clearly exposes the myth – long been peddled by the pubcos and their lobbyists, the BBPA – that somehow “tied” pubs are closing in smaller numbers than free-of-tie pubs and shows that this is actually the opposite of what is going on in the sector.
Extraordinarily, the BBPA’s own numbers – published in their Statistical Handbook 2013 – show that over 10 years from 2002-2012 the ‘Free/Independent’ sector has actually GROWN whilst the ‘Tenanted and Leased’ sector has shrunk.
The BBPA’s figures show pubs in free/independent ownership have actually grown by around 1,600, whilst the pubs in tenanted and leased ownership have shrunk by more than 8,000, showing the ‘free/independent’ sector is bucking the trend.
The BBPA have chosen to omit these clear facts from their pub closures statements and instead made wholly unsupported and incorrect statements giving an entirely misrepresented picture of the state of the UK’s pub sector.
The report also exposes how, with pub transfers from one sector to another (from non-managed to free) not being logged in the figures, some closures of non-managed pubs are being wrongly presented as closures of independent/free pubs – including failed pubco pubs being sold to developers and being classed as a ‘free’ closure, something that is clearly wrong and is distorting the figures. The fact remains that the number of pubs in independent/free ownership has remained stable over the last ten years which means that this must be happening – and therefore giving a misleading picture of sector closures.
The report also exposes how the CGA figures do not record many temporary pub closures – known as “churn” where a pubco pub tenant fails and is replaced. This means that this trend, that is rife, is happening in an estimated third of pubco estates every year according to figures revealed from pubcos is NOT counted where the closure is under two weeks, which is commonplace with pubcos installing temporary managers and replacement tenants on a tenancy at will (TAW) basis.
Finally, using the staggering disposal rates of the large pubcos, from their own report – that show an incredible THIRD of all the pubs of the two large pubcos being sold off – the Save the Pub Group show that it is this part of the pub trade that is doing exceptionally badly – both in terms of temporary and permanent closures. This clearly shows why the Government must act to deal with this – and the endemic pubco overcharging that is leading to so many pubco pub failures and closures.
The required action is to introduce a statutory code of practice for the large pub only companies which enshrines in law a market-rent only option for tied licensees.
This report and figures are clear evidence showing the catastrophic effect of the pubco tied model and the comparative health of free/independent pubs must be used by BIS to back the appropriate action, which is the BIS Select Committee solution. Only their market rent only solution will ensure that pubco tied publicans at last have a fair deal – which will lead to many more pubs being viable and staying open and serving their communities.
Greg Mulholland MP, Chair of the All Party Parliamentary Save the Pub Group, said:
“The reality of the CGA’s figures is that show that over eight years the non managed sector has seen many more net pub closures than independent free pubs, the opposite of what the pubcos and their lobbyists, the BBPA have said.
“What is shocking is that the BBPA’s own figures explicitly show that the tenanted and leased sector has declined whilst the number of independent free pubs has expanded, so the BBPA knew this all along yet have continued to peddle their myth which is utterly disgraceful.
“It is now time that the Government admitted it had been duped by the pubcos and their discredited lobbying body the BBPA but questions must be asked as to why BIS were so ready to accept something at face value that was never true.
“The real evidence is clear – from CGA, from the BBPA themselves and from the pubco disposal figures from their own reports. The tied pubco model has been a disaster and is closing pubs up and down the country and this is what the Government must deal with. This can only be dealt with through a market rent only options for tenants of the larger companies which not only would make those pub businesses significantly more profitable, it would also prevent many closures by preventing companies forcing licensees out through unreasonable terms.
“So the real evidence is clear and BIS are now running out of excuses to not introduce the essential market rent only option. It is time that Jo Swinson and Vince Cable showed the necessary courage, ignored the baseless and in some cases dishonest scaremongering and looked at the stark reality of what is happening to British pubs and finally introduced the Select Committee solution to give a fair deal for thousands of British pubs.”
Simon Clarke, from the Fair Pint Campaign, said:
“Anyone with a modicum of common sense knew the BBPA claim that free pubs were closing faster than tied had to be wrong.
“The BBPA’s own figures show the free sector is actually growing tentatively whilst leased and tenanted pub closures are in comparative freefall.
“Fair Pint consider it has been utterly deceptive for the BBPA to have selectively used some of their data whilst ignoring the truth to support their argument to keep self regulation afloat permitting the asset stripping of the Great British pub sector.
“The figures demonstrate that given a chance, with a Market Rent Only option, many pubs could operate viably and many would not have been lost to corporate greed.”
_____________________________________________________
PUB CLOSURES: THE TRUTH – REPORT SUMMARY
Summary
Introduction – the CGA figures
The myth
What the figures do show – the opposite of the BBPA myth
What the CGA figures do not show
A key issue – non inclusion of transfers
The reality of the pubco model – pubco disposal rates
Focusing on the problem – the pubco leased model – not the CGA categories
Conclusion
|
Tuesday, 24 September 2013
Pubco disposal figures expose the
reality of the pubco business model
Analysis of the pub
disposal figures reveals the extraordinary extent of pub disposals by the UK
Figures over the last
four years, compiled by the Fair Deal for Your Local campaign from the pubcos
own reports, expose the calamitous reality of the pubco business model with a
staggering THIRD of pubs owned by the two largest pubcos being sold off in just
four years.
Enterprise Inns and
Punch Taverns, the two largest pubcos, collectively disposed of over 5,000 pubs
between 2008 and 2012 – 33.24% of all of their pubs.
In
2008 Enterprise Inns owned 7,763 pubs.[1] By 2012 this figure
had dropped to 5,720 pubs.[2] The story is
similar for Punch Taverns who in 2012 owned just 4,529 pubs (excluding the
Spirit managed estate)[3] having previously
owned 7,560 in 2008.[4]
These
statistics expose the catastrophic reality of the pubco tied business model as
well as clearly demonstrating the effect this business model has on the
viability of pub businesses - and that it is causing thousands of pub closures
up and down the country.[i]
No
other part of the pub sector has seen disposal levels of anything like this,
showing that it is the large, leased pubcos and their restrictive tied model,
that are failing on a unparalleled scale. This is also in stark contrast to the
many smaller pub companies who are succeeding, increasing their figures and
taking on pubs – notably they operate completely different business models.
In
what has been described as ‘slash and burn’ tactics both Enterprise Inns and
Punch Taverns have steadily been disposing of pubs, or “asset stripping” in a
desperate attempt to pay off the extraordinary levels of debt they are in. This
debt accumulated after a period of reckless empire building, overvaluation of
their estates and over borrowing against that value. This has led to the pubcos
taking more from their tenants than is reasonable as well as engaging in huge
disposal programmes which are changing the face of villages, towns and cities
as much loved local pubs are closed, boarded up and bulldozed.
In
2012 Enterprise Inns had a net cash flow of £296 million from their pubs
business but in the same year their debt and interest payments totalled £430
million. To make up the £134 million shortfall Enterprise Inns have had to
resort to selling off pubs. This will be the fifth year in a row where debt and
interest payments have outstripped turnover.[5]
The
Fair Deal for Your Local campaign are campaigning for this asset stripping to
be halted through much needed reform of the pubco model, as suggested by the
Business Select Committee and backed by the Federation of Small Business, the
Forum of Private Business, CAMRA, licensee organisations and trade unions. The
only solution to this problem is to give pubco tenants the right to a ‘market
rent only’ option, which would mean that they can opt to pay an independently
assessed market rent and be able to buy product direct.
As
well as giving licensees the chance to receive a fair share of pub profit,
currently denied to them, it would make
thousands of pubs more viable which in itself would stem the wholesale disposal
of pubs by the pubcos. The market rent only option would also itself give
pubco tenants more security of tenure and prevent some of the unreasonable
practices used to try to force tenants out of the pub, to allow
sales/conversions to non pub use. [ii]
Greg Mulholland MP –
Chair of the All Party Parliamentary Save the Pub Group and Coordinator of the
Fair Deal for Your Local campaign, said:
“The Department for
Business, Innovation & Skills have asked for evidence of the effect of the
pubco tied model on pubs and their viability. There is no clearer evidence than
the pubcos own disposal rates which show the extraordinary fact that together
the two big pubcos, Enterprise Inns and Punch Taverns have got rid of a third
of their pub estate in just four years.
“Sadly most of these
pubs have been sold for alternative use, to supermarkets and developers, often
with strong opposition from local people. So it is communities up and down the
country who are paying the price for this as well as the pubco publicans who are
being ripped off.
“The pubcos are
planning to close thousands more in a desperate attempt to pay off the billions
of pounds of debt they are in as a result of their reckless over borrowing and
acquisition spree. Many of these pubs could be successful under a different and
fair business model but with the pubcos too indebted to change, only the
Government can step in and stop the fire sales by stopping the endemic,
calamitous overcharging which would give thousands of pubs a brighter future.
“The choice for
Ministers is stark. Do what they promised in 2011 and act to save many of the
thousands of pubs earmarked for closure by the pubcos by making rents fair or
fiddle while the pubco slash and burn continues which means ignoring the
unnecessary loss of so many valued and viable pubs which also means a loss to
the economy.”
Fionnuala
Horrocks-Burns, Policy Officer at Forum of Private Business, said:
“Pubs are
disappearing from local communities at far too rapid a rate. Many of these
small businesses have struggled in recent years to remain afloat and they
should be protected from these disposal practices which act as a buffer for the
poor business decisions made by the large pub owning companies.
“Now is the
time for the government to act and show their support for small businesses by
ensuring tied tenants have the right to a market rent option. The UK pub
industry needs better safeguarding from the unfair practices of the largest
pubcos.”
Simon Clarke, of the
Fair Pint Campaign, said:
"The pubcos disposal program of pubs has been in full swing for the last four years. These pubs have not found their way into the managed or free of tie sectors so it seems quite clear that quietly the pubcos are selling off for redevelopment to alternative use.
"The pubcos disposal program of pubs has been in full swing for the last four years. These pubs have not found their way into the managed or free of tie sectors so it seems quite clear that quietly the pubcos are selling off for redevelopment to alternative use.
“It is the tied lease
terms that enable pubcos to sell easily to developers as these terms offer an
opportunity to evict the tenant by restraint of trade. A Market Rent Only
option for tied tenants would help curb this behaviour hence the pubcos
aversion to it. A Market Rent Only option not only gives a tenant a fairer
share of pub profits, it also makes it much harder for pubcos to force out
their tenants which will lead to fewer closures and a more sustainable pub
sector”.
Val Spencer, of Licensees Supporting Licensees, said:
“Licensees Supporting Licensees is appalled
but not surprised with information on 'The Churn' identified and experienced by
Tied Publicans.
“With Enterprise Inns alone 'disposing' of
more than 300 Pubs this year & their debt burden increased by £100m in the
recent bond issue, the future is not bright without the intervention of
Government.
“We look forward to The Government taking
control of this situation by implementing a structure curbing these blatant
excesses of corporate greed.
“LSL have no
doubt that this will result in re-invigorated Pubs, local Economies & the
Communities they serve.”
Paul Kenny,
GMB General Secretary, said:
"The only solution to this problem is to
give pubco tenants the right to a ‘market rent only’ option, which would mean
that they can opt to pay an independently assessed market rent and be able to
buy product direct.
“As we as giving licensees the chance to receive a fair share of pub profit, currently denied to them, it would make thousands of pubs more viable which in itself would stem the wholesale disposal of pubs by the pubcos."
“As we as giving licensees the chance to receive a fair share of pub profit, currently denied to them, it would make thousands of pubs more viable which in itself would stem the wholesale disposal of pubs by the pubcos."
[4] Source: Punch Taverns Annual Report and Financial Statements 2012 -
page 4 'Chief Executive Officers review'
[i] There are three main
categories of pub ownership, 'Non-Managed' representing tenanted and leased
pubs, the majority tied, 'Managed' and 'Free'. In December 2008 there were a
total of 62,479 pubs, by September 2012 this number had dropped to around
57,652. Over the same period the Non-Managed, mostly tied, category has dropped
from more than 31,000 to around 27,448, a drop of 12%. The Managed and Free
categories have remained relatively stable in number, dropping by only around
606 (6%) and 335 (2%) respectively. Shockingly
this shows that there are 4,872 fewer pubs in ownership, according to CGA's numbers,
and of them over 80% (3,886) were disposals from the Non Managed (mainly tied)
sector.
It
is clear that the majority of pubco disposals are not finding their way into
the other categories and must therefore be closing for good.
[ii] Redevelopment or alternative use require
vacant possession. A tenant in occupation is usually protected by the Landlord
and Tenant Act 1954, making vacant possession difficult to obtain. Tied pubs
are prime targets for developers and supermarkets as the tied provisions of the
lease allow pub owners to circumvent the legislation designed to protect
tenants by restricting beer choice, and increase beer price to unsustainable
levels, potentially bankrupting the tenant in a matter of weeks and making
vacant possession easy to achieve.
Notes to Editors
1.
The figures used are from
Enterprise Inns and Punch Taverns own reports (referenced above).
2.
The figures in footnote i. from the sources
referenced are all based on/use the CGA figures for closures of licensed
premises, which have been supplied to the various sources quoted.
3.
The Fair Deal for Your Local campaign,
campaigning for a fair deal for pubco publicans is supported by ten pub
industry organisations who have come together on this issue: The Federation of
Small Businesses, The Forum of Private Business, CAMRA (The Campaign for Real
Ale), the GMB trade union, Fair Pint, Licensees Supporting Licensees, Licensees
Unite the Union, Justice for Licensees, The Guild of Master Victuallers and
Pubs Advisory Service. All are campaigning for the market rent only option
which will mean positive change for pubco publicans, pubs and the communities
they serve.
4.
Pub Sales / Purchases by Enterprise Inns 2003 to 2013
H1.
|
Year
|
No.of Pubs
|
Change in Pub no's
|
|
2003
|
5087
|
|
|
2004
|
8727
|
3640 bought
|
|
2005
|
8590
|
137 sold
|
|
2006
|
8522
|
68 sold
|
|
2007
|
7741
|
781 sold
|
|
2008
|
7762
|
21 bought
|
|
2009
|
7399
|
363 sold
|
|
2010
|
6820
|
579 sold
|
|
2011
|
6289
|
531 sold
|
|
2012
|
5902
|
387 sold
|
|
2013 H1
|
5766
|
136
sold
|
All figures gathered from Enterprise Inns Financial Statements 2003 to
2013 Half 1.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)