Robert Sayles: Pubcos v GMB Showdown - SOLD OUT!!

The war of words between the BBPA and the GMB over the last few days suggests that a titanic heavyweight bout is imminent; the exchanges bore all the hallmarks of two camps 'talking up the fight' prior to the day of reckoning.

Cynics would counter that this is merely a ruse to boost ticket sales; if so, it appears to have succeeded, this fight is now the talk of the town and a box office event.

Many, myself included, were surprised when the GMB committed themselves to supporting what is after all, a non-union dispute. That said, they must have assessed the implications of such involvement carefully and, given their current stance, they clearly do not feel intimidated by threats from the BBPA, not yet at least.

There are so many questions which remain unanswered. Will the fight take place or is it merely a case of people 'talking the talk'? If indeed it does go ahead will it be a twelve round classic or a first round knockout?

What is also unclear at this stage is who exactly the GMB will be getting into the ring with. The term 'pubco' has become synonymous with evil and tyranny and in this respect two primary culprits continually stand accused. It should not be forgotten however, that many smaller companies and brewers run admirable business models with few complaints from tenants.

There is growing militancy in the air however and such 'minor issues' have not discouraged those spoiling for a fight. Tickets have long sold out and the public are eager to witness a contest that lives up to the pre-fight hype; unfortunately there is one undeniable fact, in this day and age it rarely does.

The form book is certainly with the pub companies. The facts are clear; tenants took on leases knowing full well that they were contractually obliged to buy their beer from their pubco. By seeking to buy outside the tie they are breaking the terms of that contract.

That said it is difficult not to have sympathy with the plight of many of my fellow tenants at the moment. Since 2007 the industry has changed beyond all recognition; contracts that at one time offered the prospect of a decent living are now little more than a sentence to a life of penury.

Faced with such a bleak prospect wouldn't you throw your lot in with anyone who offered the prospect of salvation? Desperate people sometimes resort to desperate measures; that is unfortunately a sad fact of life.

The situation is not made any more palatable by the fact that many new tenants now entering the trade are able to secure very favourable agreements which reflect the realities of the current market. Why not us I hear you say?

The counter arguement is that unfortunately, that is the way of the world. Many people who bought a house in early 2008 for example are now more than likely burdened with negative equity; do you hear them asking for a refund?

That said, things clearly have to change. The margins pubcos are currently making on their beer is nothing short of scandalous and the rents on older agreements particularly are looking increasingly onerous. Whether this fight, (assuming it goes ahead) will resolve these issues is open to question.

I suspect that, despite the apparent intransigence, each side might feel it prudent to make concessions. Such a scenario would allow both fighters to walk out of the ring claiming victory.

I'm sure that many of you out there, regardless of your stance, are hoping for an upset. After all, everybody likes to see the underdog prevail from time to time, and upsets can and do happen. Others have long since concluded that the outcome is a foregone conclusion.

Whatever your view, I suspect the majority harbour hopes that should, as expected, the champion prevail, he sustain, at the very least a split lip and hopefully a black eye or two for his troubles!

One thing is for sure, the day of reckoning is nigh. 'Let's get ready to rumble!' I hear you say.

__________________________________________________________________________

On a separate note I have to confess that some of the comments made by long-time friend and Pubco CEO, Roland Rodent in my previous blog (Exclusive - Pubco CEO defends business model​) caused a bit of a furore in certain quarters.

The British ambassador in Moscow was summoned to explain Roland's remarks in respect of Vladimir Putin. He was, by all accounts, able to placate the Russian authorities by assuring them that Roland's remarks were 'taken out of context' and that no offence was intended.

Roland has received threats of litigation from several pro-rights groups and has taken emergency leave; (he is currently in Kenya tending to his tea plantation). Several anti-pubco groups contacted me to vehemently deny any links to Moscow, whilst a number of liberals have voiced concerns regarding Roland's suggestion that public floggings be re-introduced.

I also received a rather irate phone call from an obese gentleman in Rochdale named George; he was at pains to point out that his condition is nothing more than a genetic disorder and that any attempt to ban him from going to the pub would be grossly unfair.

This sentiment is apparently shared by the landlord of his local; hardly surprising really, given that George regularly puts away 18 pints of Guinness on a Saturday night. I wonder what the health lobby would make of that!