What now for M&B?

As one long-running industry takeover saga drew to a close - to wit, Scottish & Newcastle finally succumbing to the Saxon hordes - interest in the outcome of another corporate set-to takes its place.

Mitchells & Butlers' (M&B) senior management team may feel it had drawn first blood after Punch Taverns withdrew its merger proposals a week or so ago.

While the managed operator wasn't commenting on Punch's decision, its publicly expressed confidence in its own businesses, in its finances, its dividend policy, its prospects, etc, is apparent. There is no evidence of panic.

Behind closed doors however, the picture may be different.

Next month M&B reveals the findings of its latest strategic review. Much - hell, perhaps everything - hinges on what chief executive Tim Clarke tells the market on May 22. The smart money is on some form of limited asset disposal programme, with renewed management vigour viz creating value to shareholders.

For some, whatever M&B does will be too little too late. They want the current executive team ousted in order for there to be any return to confidence in the group's future. External factors, such as the financial markets crisis putting the scuppers on its property joint venture with shareholder Robert Tchenguiz, haven't helped Clarke or his colleagues.

But success - and reputation - is as much about maintaining long-term stability as it is coming up with short-term goodies for shareholders. We await M&B's plans with interest.

Admin, schmadmin

I thought the point of a business going into administration was to protect creditors, not shareholders.

Robert Tchenguiz's recent Laurel administration move - whereby he bought back the best bits of the group in a back-to-back deal but left the less attractive side of the business in the hands of the receivers - certainly wasn't illegal. But it still felt wrong.

I'm no expert on legislative issues, but there seems to be a gap of sorts in the current situation. A change to the rules, anyone?