... damned right Mr Whiteside (with apologies to Aardman) |
This is my reply ...
All the best Mr Whiteside, sadly for thousands of individuals who were
at the shitty end of the partnership stick and were stripped of their
assets whilst the company of which you are so proud paid down its
debt mountain with their life savings, your words will ring somewhat
hollow.
Yet again we see the "low cost entry" mantra reiterated
as justification for sharp business practices but no acknowledgement or
even a whiff of an apology to the hapless victims of your company's (and
others) "high cost exit" business model.
As few will mourn your
passing from the "stormy seas of the pub sector", so will few mourn the
passing of Punch et al when they finally succumb to regulation and
market forces.
Angry blogger? You bet! When the industry that I
have worked in and been proud to be part of for over 30 years is in such
crisis. Yes, tax and duty, supermarkets and smoking have all had their
part to play, but the billions of value in our national estate of pubs
that has been stripped out by pubcos must surely be a major culprit.
I
am glad you enjoyed your time at Punch, on your salary I should imagine
that the odd frosty reception, coffin bearing protestors and angry
blogs haven't been too onerous a burden.
The once in a generation
chance to bring the pub industry to an equitable settlement through
regulation is not to be feared as you and others who have a vested
interest in the status quo would like... rather it is to be embraced as
the only chance for this industry to survive. If thousands of pubs do
come to the market on a free of tie basis (be it freehold or rented)
with transparency of rents and other costs then this will be no bad
thing.
Just as it was not beyond the wit of Punch to re-brand the
tie as a buying club (surely this must get a lifetime marketing award
from somebody) nor will it beyond the wit of individual operators to
join or create their own genuine buying clubs to extract their true
value from the supply market.
I recognise the need for the market
to create its own levels (both in terms of absolute numbers of pubs and
the beer those pubs consume) and that there is a place within the
market for the tied model. But it has to be a model that rewards in
equal measure the capital and entrepreneurial input of the tenant and
the capital and estate management input of the landlord.
What
the average bloke(ess) who take on a pub want from a landlord is a fair shake
of the stick, if they succeed so be it, if they fail so be it. Some are
good at running pub businesses, some are not, but the emphasis has to
be on fair ... and whilst we're at it honest and transparent. You and
your colleagues within the BBPA have steadfastly resisted this to the
point that Parliament has finally run out of patience.
So, in closing I have a message as an angry blogger to you ... bring it on!
No comments:
Post a Comment