- Morning Advertiser >
- Forums >
- News Article Comments >
- Pubcos "bend over backwards" over rents
News Article Comments : Pubcos "bend over backwards" over rents
The gap between rents sought by landlords and what tenants are prepared to pay is widening - but pubcos are “bending over backwards” to do a deal with tenants.
That’s according to Fleurets chairman Barry Gillham, speaking about the agent’s new Rental Survey showing trends in rents across the leisure sector.
Gillham said most referrals for arbitration come from property companies as high-street operators resist any uplift.
The Rental Survey shows that in several regions, among traditional pubs average rent fell in 2007 after a review. For example, by 12% to £104,000 in the south east, and by 3% to £92,000 in the south west and south Wales.
Overall rent hikes after reviews increased by far less between 2002 and 2007 compared to the period from 1997 to 2002.
In the south west, there was a 5% uplift between 2002 to 2007. By contrast, the increase was 35% between 1997 and 2002.
Gillham said landlords are asking for higher rents while input costs for tenants - for example food, beer an
15 Posts(s) found for this thread: Now displaying page 2 of 2
|
||
| Author Name | Opinion | Reply |
|---|---|---|
martin kay 05/09/2008 21:08:28  |
With due respect to a number of posters, Mr BG did not write the article; the MA did. If one were to read the full Fleurets report it would make more sense. Don't worry about BG on the roadshows; he is more than capable of holding his own. This post replies to Charles Yaxley > Pubcos "bend over backward" |
|
J Mark Dodds 05/09/2008 22:31:41 |
Pubcos "bend over backwards" over rents PubCos have no avoidance issue over arbitration - they use the threat of arbitration as a financial cudgel to quash awkward tenants who fight ridiculously high unsustainable rent reviews. Arbitration processes by default favour the side with most power; in a dispute between a tiny individual publican and a giant PubCo freeholder, the likely winner will be the freeholder. If the situation is complicated the arbitrator will come up with a figure slap bang in the middle of the two sides' opinions as to where the rent should be set - a situation that automatically favours the freeholder because they always look for such huge increases that sitting in the middle will result in a massive uplift for the lessee. edited by: J Mark Dodds at: 05/09/2008 22:32:23 This post replies to Matthew Evans > Pubcos "bend over backwards" over rents |
|
| Charles Yaxley 06/09/2008 13:51:48 |
Thank you for putting my mind at rest....although, to be honest, I was not in doubt about Mr Gillham's abilities: I'm not inclined towards paying for duffers! This post replies to martin kay > Pubcos bend etc. |
|
| Charles Yaxley 07/09/2008 19:59:07 |
Pubcos "bend over backwards" over rents A thing I am curious about is the 'Enterprise Retail Partnership Agreement'. I see in the 'other paper' an interview with Simon Townesend who offers these up as a way of lessees paying more rent for becomming free of tie. I am perplexed as only 2 days before reading this I was told by Enterprise that they were not doing these anymore.....mmmmm! On the subject of 'retail', whilst it is strictly true that we are retailers, but only in the same sense that Pharmacists or physiotherapists are. Partners.........mmmmm! But most heinous of all is when we are described as being "their retailers": we are not, WE ARE THEIR CUSTOMERS. Start thinking as customers and not employees! edited by: Charles Yaxley at: 07/09/2008 19:59:50 This post replies to this thread |
|
| J Mark Dodds 07/09/2008 22:13:20 |
Pubcos "bend over backwards" over rents 'Enterprise Retail Partnership Agreement': What's Yours is Ours what's Ours is Ours. Geddit? This post replies to Charles Yaxley > Pubcos "bend over backwards" over rents |
|
|
||
