Another one bites the dust

[accysimon]

The Whitakers Arms, on Burnley Rd, is also now up for sale...The Griffins Head is under offer.

[jaysay]

Originally Posted by accysimon

The Whitakers Arms, on Burnley Rd, is also now up for sale...The Griffins Head is under offer.

I've heard the Griffins Head has got new tenants when the present landlord leaves

[Acrylic-bob]

"Symptomatic behaviour of most of the major chains now, John.

Squeeze every penny out of the decent pubs until the tenants pack up and leave, ship in someone 'temporary' then shut altogether after six months and blame the taxation system. Many of them seem to have slipped in an extra layer of management as well for some bizarre reason.

It seems to me that they make so much money from supermarket sales that pubs are too much of a headache but if something is turning you a profit and keeping people happy why fiddle with it?"


Hmmm. Remind me again Ken, which party it was, while in Government, who changed the licensing laws and permitted the supermarkets and every corner shop to sell alcohol at cost price 24 hrs a day in the facile belief that this would create a cafe culture completely oblivious to the effect that this would have on the traditional outlets. Hmmm? Who was that Ken?

[jaysay]

Originally Posted by Acrylic-bob

"Symptomatic behaviour of most of the major chains now, John.

Squeeze every penny out of the decent pubs until the tenants pack up and leave, ship in someone 'temporary' then shut altogether after six months and blame the taxation system. Many of them seem to have slipped in an extra layer of management as well for some bizarre reason.

It seems to me that they make so much money from supermarket sales that pubs are too much of a headache but if something is turning you a profit and keeping people happy why fiddle with it?"


Hmmm. Remind me again Ken, which party it was, while in Government, who changed the licensing laws and permitted the supermarkets and every corner shop to sell alcohol at cost price 24 hrs a day in the facile belief that this would create a cafe culture completely oblivious to the effect that this would have on the traditional outlets. Hmmm? Who was that Ken?

In the case of the Griffins Head, I believe that the Landlord is leaving because he has been offered a job he can't turn down Bob, but on the whole I totally agree with what you've said especially with the reorganisation of the licencing hours, stupid and totally unnecessary

[Ken Moss]

Originally Posted by Acrylic-bob

Hmmm. Remind me again Ken, which party it was, while in Government, who changed the licensing laws and permitted the supermarkets and every corner shop to sell alcohol at cost price 24 hrs a day in the facile belief that this would create a cafe culture completely oblivious to the effect that this would have on the traditional outlets. Hmmm? Who was that Ken?

Bingo! It's all Labour's fault!

It is no government's fault that pricing remains so ludicrously high in public houses but people like you will believe that legislation and taxation are ultimately responsible for driving people away from the bar. The breweries will ultimately be responsible for the demise of pubs and anyone who has ventured into one recently will be able to see that. I assume you haven't, Bob.

The Rishton Workmen's Club has a shining example of brewery greed in that it is cheaper to buy Thwaites beer, beer brewed just three miles away, from Wigan Beers. Just explain how government legislation has caused a brewery to make it more expensive to buy from them directly? How is this helping pubs that want to sell local beer?

Why are tied houses which are forced to buy their beer from the brewery and paying rent on top charged almost double the price that a free house would pay for the same barrel? Labour's fault, is it? Just take a moment to think what that Labour monster Graham Jones did for clubs by working to get them better tax relief.

The one thing I will concede is that the smoking ban was too harsh and dedicated smoking rooms would have been a better idea but beyond that you are talking a load of rubbish.

If 24-hour licensing is so awful then the 'coalition' (that word makes me laugh every time I hear it) now have the power to reverse it, don't they?

[Alan Varrechia]

Damn my shoe lace just snapped, and a light bulb popped. I reckon it's all the fault of 13 years of labour rule. Now then what else can i blame on them!!!!!!.
I don't think you will ever make any headway Ken.

[jaysay]

Originally Posted by Alan Varrechia

Damn my shoe lace just snapped, and a light bulb popped. I reckon it's all the fault of 13 years of labour rule. Now then what else can i blame on them!!!!!!.
I don't think you will ever make any headway Ken.

You never do Alan, when your on a looser

[Acrylic-bob]

"If 24-hour licensing is so awful then the 'coalition' (that word makes me laugh every time I hear it) now have the power to reverse it, don't they?"

As far as I am aware the Home Secretary mentioned at the party conference that a repeal was on the cards.

"The breweries will ultimately be responsible for the demise of pubs and anyone who has ventured into one recently will be able to see that. I assume you haven't, Bob. "

You would be assuming too much. Of course the breweries must shoulder a great deal of the responsibility for the current pricing structure, but not all of it by any means. The breweries did not set the punitively high tax rates or the equally punitive business rates. the breweries did not insist on the implementation of Health and Safety legislation, nor did they implore government and local government to quadruple the beurocracy surrounding the granting of a licence. Supermarkets and franchised off licences and newsagencies are able to negotiate with the breweries for bulk sales at discount prices. these prices are unavailable to the average landlord because the volume of sales is not there anymore.

Unless and until the playing field is level pubs and clubs will always loose out to the supermarkets' philosophy of 'pile it high and sell it cheap' (or at cost ).

To my mind the use by the supermarkets of alcohol as a loss leader is morally reprehensible and has disastrous social consequences. And this is a situation entirely brought about by the introduction of the twenty four hour licence.

So, yes, Bingo! It is Labour's fault

[Mancie]

Originally Posted by Acrylic-bob

Hmmm. Remind me again Ken, which party it was, while in Government, who changed the licensing laws and permitted the supermarkets and every corner shop to sell alcohol at cost price 24 hrs a day in the facile belief that this would create a cafe culture completely oblivious to the effect that this would have on the traditional outlets. Hmmm? Who was that Ken?

So the demise of pubs in Accrington is down to every supermarket and corner shop in the area selling alcohol 24 hrs a day? ...I'd bet that you can't name any!

[jaysay]

Originally Posted by Mancie

So the demise of pubs in Accrington is down to every supermarket and corner shop in the area selling alcohol 24 hrs a day? ...I'd bet that you can't name any!

Your probably right Mancie cuz there isn't one

[Ken Moss]

Originally Posted by Acrylic-bob

Of course the breweries must shoulder a great deal of the responsibility for the current pricing structure, but not all of it by any means. The breweries did not set the punitively high tax rates or the equally punitive business rates. the breweries did not insist on the implementation of Health and Safety legislation, nor did they implore government and local government to quadruple the beurocracy surrounding the granting of a licence. Supermarkets and franchised off licences and newsagencies are able to negotiate with the breweries for bulk sales at discount prices. these prices are unavailable to the average landlord because the volume of sales is not there anymore.

Unless and until the playing field is level pubs and clubs will always loose out to the supermarkets' philosophy of 'pile it high and sell it cheap' (or at cost ).

To my mind the use by the supermarkets of alcohol as a loss leader is morally reprehensible and has disastrous social consequences. And this is a situation entirely brought about by the introduction of the twenty four hour licence.

Even Accy Asda doesn't sell booze 24 hours which rather makes a mockery of that argument.

You still can't come back to me and explain why a tied house pays almost twice as much per barrel of beer than a free house does. How is that Labour's fault? Wake up Bob, take off the political blinkers and see the world how it really is for a change. It's like the old classic about obesity being the government's fault because of packaging regulations not being strict enough.

All governments have their faults but blaming everything on them is the lazy option.

[Acrylic-bob]

Well, you may be right about ASDA in Accrington, I do not know what their licensing hours are because I never shop there. However, different branches do operate different policies, apparently subject to the branch manager's discretion.

Why does a tenant in a tied house pay more for beer than a free house? Simple because a tied house, as is implied by the description, is owned by the brewery. Breweries are businesses and the object of any business is to maximise profit any way they can. That is a duty imposed upon them by shareholders. In addition to charging for beer at the full rate, they will also add a proportion to the cost of the product to cover the cost of any capital investment made in the premises, plus advertising and promotion costs, plus any loans they may have made to the tennant to cover fixtures and fittings. For the truth of that why don't you nip in to the Walmsley and have a word with the landlord there, I am sure he will be only too happy to explain Thwaites's pricing policy to you. And if you nip in on a quiet afternoon he might even have time to draw you a diagram - it certainly seems like you need one.

As far as political blinkers are concerned Ken old chap, I have no use for them. Unlike some who like their opinions pre-packaged, I prefer to think for myself. That way if I make a mistake there is only me to blame.

You are quite right to allow that all Governments, have their faults, but I think that you must also allow that some have more than most and that the last Government showed itself as being second to none in that regard.

[Whittaker]

i have had a pub (twice) as some of you will know and i still dont get my head around the way the breweries think if i can explain why i think they are arse about face (if that is the right expression ...

if Volvo for instance were supplying volvo cars to Walker Farimond (a volvo dealership) they would not sell a volvo car to John Hill car sales cheaper than walker farrimond so why do Thwaites sell their Beer(volvo car) cheaper to the Peel Park (john hill car sales) than the Griffins head (walker farrimond) this seems to be the only business that works this way if you like the thaites tied houses are franchises and in any business a franchise buys product from the main dealer cheaper than others

i hope i have explained my thoughtsand not confused you

[Acrylic-bob]

OK, Once more into the breach...

I am a brewery. I produce beer which I hope to sell at a substantial profit over what it costs me to brew (overheads, raw materials, tax, etc.) let us suppose for arguments sake that it costs me 20p per pint to brew. That is my break even cost -no mark up for profit.

let us further suppose that I have decided that my profit margin will be a standard 2/3, so that is 20p cost plus 2x20p profit which gives a price to my customer of 60p per pint. (it is actually 1/3 materials plus 1/3 overheads plus 1/3 profit but I am trying to simplify)

To continue; I have several customers, one is the tenant of a pub which my company owns and another is a chain of supermarkets. The tenant needs to make a profit too, so he will add as much as he thinks his market will bear, but I may place a limit on what he can charge so that his prices do not differ too wildly from those of any other tenant I may have and so skew the market in his favour - I have to be fair to all my tenants. Let us suppose then that I allow a further mark up of 20p to cover the tenants profits and overheads. This brings the cost of the pint to the drinker to 80p.

My other customer, the Supermarket chain, is different. He is able, because of his size and the number of outlets at his disposal, to buy my product in very large quantities. Where my tenant can sell maybe three or four 22gallon kegs per week. the supermarket can sell 200 thousand gallons per week. He also prefers his product to be packed in disposable containers and he is prepared to assist in the cost of installing the packing machinery. He has one stipulation however; the price must be as low as possible. Typically he would like to pay just 1p per pint over my cost price. He will then pass this saving on entire to his customer - 61p per pint. and use the product to entice customers in to buy his other products.

Quick calculations are necessary, I must consider who is the more important customer.
the tenant nets me £281.00 per week the supermarket nets me £2,000 per week. Add to the calculation that the tenant is also a fairly high maintainence customer, I have to bail him out regularly with advertising and promotions, with fixtures and fittings and even business loans to keep him going. The situation was different when I only had tenants and off licenses to supply, then the market was fairly fixed but since the government decided that anyone can have an alcohol licence and the supermarket has come along my shareholders eyes are glittering. I am sure that they would even consider 0.5p per pint over cost if the supermarket insisted. The free house across the road from my tenant is a pain in the bum really. It sources my product from a subsiduary of the supermarket. Since the supermarket is paying a low price it can afford to pass on some of the saving to the free house, who unfortunately has a habit of passing some of this saving on to the drinker thus undercutting my tenant's prices. But never mind, the more the supermarket buys the more profit I make, and the more profit I make the happier my shareholders are.

If you are still following me, that is basically it. In reality it is much more complex than my simple explanation might give you to believe but, in essence that is how the system works. The tennant in the tied house could never hope to sell enough product to be able to compete with the Free House on price, much less the Supermarket.

[cashman]

that seems a fair summary A-B, the answer then is fer any government to prohibit supermarkets n alcohol licence, n only allow sales to pubs/clubs/ local offys etc, that is the only way i see a level playing field. of coarse the tescos.asdas,etc would bleat, but as there ******* anyway i dont care.