Your say

Flexible rents are way forward for pubs

With reference to the editor's leader "What's fair and maintainable?" (MA, 24 April), I have a few comments. I decided to leave the trade last year to find a "normal" job after 24 years in the industry, and a recent terrible experience with Enterprise Inns. I can fully appreciate what is being said within the trade about the big four pubcos being greedy, uncaring, and downright stupid when it comes to making any pub work.

Why cannot rents be linked to a percentage of the pub's turnover during the first two years of a new lease business, then move on to the agreed rental premium from year three? This would allow the operator to gain a good foothold in the business, and should things prove successful during the first/second year then a larger payment on a percentage of turnover would be paid. If, on the other hand, there were problems, such as flooding, there would not be such a massive rent request from the pubco when business is in a poor state.

I think that it is now time the big four pubcos did the following: reduce struggling pubs' rents; assist with marketing campaigns; do something to reduce the price of a pint; all in order to help secure the future of the great British pub.

The big four pubcos would soon start to worry if the lease market began to dry up. They would probably have to consider off-loading freeholds to survive, which may not be a bad thing for the pub entrepreneurs out there.

So, if anyone is considering investing cash in a pub lease at the moment — stop. Wait for the prices to come down and negotiate a package that is good for you, and not just the pubco.

Richard D Partington FBII

via richpartington@yahoo.co.uk

Taking Snifter to task for Daily Wail lead

As an avid fan of Snifter, I was rather dismayed to read the "Trade backing from an unlikely corner" piece (MA, 20 March). The original article in the Daily Mail was an example of exceedingly poor journalism and a failure of the basic principles of research.

I would have hoped, when the MA decided to follow it up, that maybe someone would have contacted those premises mentioned, especially as we, as one of those, are subscribers.

Mook is a leasehold premises managed by Independent Bars. It is not owned by Spirit Group, it is not part of a national brand as mentioned in the Daily Mail, nor are we responsible for the destruction of the traditional British pub.

Having previously run a grade-II listed traditional cask-ale house prior to arriving at Mook, I understand both sides of this argument, but there is a reason for certain under-performing outlets to be converted to cater for different markets. And while we don't sell cask ale, we are the only stockist of draught Baltika in the city centre, and we serve Grimbergen trappist beers by the bottle.

If certain members of Camra would stop looking at things nostalgically and learn about the licensed trade and its current difficulties, they would stop giving misleading comments to the tabloid press. Also, the other outlet mentioned, Whitelocks, isn't owned by Spirit Group either. Nor do they serve nachos, penne pasta or Kashmiri chicken. Whitelocks is the oldest pub in Leeds and is still a traditional British luncheon house, serving traditional British cuisine with a fine range of cask ales.

Piers FitzGerald, director, Independent Bars Limited

PS. Love the new format! Keep up the good work and the campaign!