Martin O'Neill has simply represented the pubcos'

I predicted after the first stage of the verbal evidence that the Trade & Industry Select Committee inquiry into pubco power would come to nothing.

This was confirmed when Martin O'Neill was an invited speaker at a function attended by many of the pubco chiefs. As a committee chairman, he should have declined such an invitation, but he didn't. One can rightly question why.

The committee's findings clearly show how little understanding they have of business in general and more importantly of our industry.

Not one single pubco sticks to the European directive on rents, they do not provide anything like the "added value" called for in the directive, and every aspect of their business practice is materially flawed ­ insurance at three times the going rate, beer supplied at three times the free-trade rate, rents on average at 17% to 20% of turnover, cellar maintenance charged for. The list is endless but MPs do not seem to understand basic economics.

I would like to congratulate Mr O'Neill. As an elected representative he has done a good job representing the pubcos. As I said at the time, his aggression was just a smoke screen. He is no better than Sir Alan Budd who found no evidence that David Blunkett did anything wrong. Let this be a lesson to all those licensees who voted Labour.

R Feal-Martinez

Licensee

The Carpenters Arms

South Marston

Near Swindon

Wiltshire

SN3 4ST

A better business model needs to be constructed'

I was fascinated to read the article in the 9 December issue of the Morning Advertiser in which Alex Salussolia commented on the rent review process.

As one-time marketing director of Glendola Leisure, it was my challenge to increase the revenue to meet the demands of the landlords. I now make a living helping lessees drive their revenue to meet the expectations of their landlords.

My experience is that the relationship will never really deliver superb customer service while the tenant and landlord are at loggerheads. It is no surprise that the landlord makes assumptions while the operator tries to hide revenue.

No business model ever truly works where there are no common shared objectives among all interested parties.

Surely with all the intellectual power available in the trade it is possible to construct a better relationship? Turnover-related rent with fallback is a start, but this must be a realistic percentage and have an incentive for both parties to share all information. Everyone must be focussed on maximising revenue at the lowest cost. Thissingle objective would remove the need for all those arbitrary assumptions about costs, overheads, profit, drawings etc.

The tie seems to be very destructive, delivering only resentment and a police mentality. The business model must be constructed so that it is in everyone's interest for products to be purchased at the lowest cost ­ even if that is at Tesco!

A coincidence of objectives would make the job of the business development manager much more rewarding. The BDMs could then really focus on business development, rather than in most cases concentrating on rent collection and policing supply.

This letter is not meant to provide a solution, merely to highlight how I see the relationship from a relatively objective viewpoint. I am prepared to be part of any serious discussions on constructing a better business model. Who is going to take up this challenge?

Michael Cockman

Sales Ideas

Oxford

There's no excuse for price hikes at Christmas'

My daughter and her three children visit the local pub twice a week for a meal. She, her husband and their children can have chicken and chips with two veg followed by a sweet for a total outlay of £21.68.

When the Christmas menu appeared on the noticeboard at the pub in question, chicken, two veg, a sweet and soup cost £21 per person. To have virtually the same meal that they have twice a week would have cost them a total of £105 ­ a difference of £83.32. Was the soup full of diamonds?

The barmaids would have worn Christmas hats, there would have been a tree, the staff would have been on double pay and customers would have had to put up with the usual moans about having to work over the holidays, but was there any excuse for putting up the prices to such an extent? Pubs are closing down at the rate of 20 a week. Is there any reason for this?

On another subject, the 2 December issue of the Morning Advertiser featured a story about a licensee who had ordered his pub to be closed because 15 people were smashing up the bar. The man deserves a medal. He should not be in trouble with his brewery because he closed the pub without first contacting his district manager for permission. If he had actually followed this procedure and contacted his DM, Greene King could have been faced with a bill for glasses, tables and chairs, and customers could also have been injured. Let's be honest, Greene King ought to light a big fire and get rid of their guidelines.

If any action is taken against the manager,I can assure the company that an industrialtribunal will cost it more than the damage to the pub and the loss of revenue.

What would have happened if the police and not the manager had closed the pub? What would the DM have said if he had been contacted? Theaverage DM would have had no idea what to do. These spotty-faced individuals who are still wet behind the ears have no idea about how to run a pub or the damage that can be done in minutes.

It would not be the DM in the front line. How many DM's have been beaten up in a pub? I know many licensees and their partners who have been beaten defending their homes and brewery's property. I will be very interested to hear the outcome of this matter.

A McCarthy

Barnetby Road

Hessle

Humberside

HU13 9HE