Nothing it seems, stirs the emotions or provokes quite the same level of hostility that this seemingly innocuous little word does; reactions such as the one above help account for the growth of an increasingly popular pastime amongst many publicans; namely 'pubco bashing'.
This activity is, I would venture, the inevitable product of a one dimensional thought process that helps explain why many feel compelled to begin their day by logging onto The Publican to air their grievances and seek solace from those of a like mind.
It's clear that for some of us at least, the term 'pubco' is synonymous with everything that is wrong with this industry; it evokes images of corporate greed, sycophantic pandering to shareholders, widespread abuse of tenants, and a whole host of other indiscretions.
Perhaps it would be fair to say that for many, such attitudes are shaped by a particularly traumatic encounter with one particular company. This painful experience inevitably and perhaps understandably impacts upon their perception of all pubcos, regardless of whether or not they have had any dealings with them.
The problem with this is that it's likely to result in sweeping generalisations being made which are readily accepted as fact by all those who feel similarly aggrieved; i.e. there is no discernable difference between the pubcos, all adhere to the same modus operandi - the wanton abuse of tenants and the ruthless pursuit of profit.
Is this fair? In the interests of a balanced debate I decided to try and put this 'global' perception to the test by visiting Everards, a small pubco and brewer in Leicestershire. The only thing I knew about them prior to my visit was that they have a small estate of approximately 170 outlets and were voted 'Pubco of the year' in 2007 and 2008 and runners up in 2009.
Unlike some of their counterparts, they have resisted large scale expansion, a sensible policy given that many observers have long concluded that the preoccupation with growth that we witnessed in the early part of the decade has resulted in an inevitable decline in standards.
I certainly know of companies who have accepted tenants, even though it was patently obvious from the outset that they were unsuitable to run a pub; the overriding priority of the pub company appeared to be to get another 'body' into the outlet at the earliest possible opportunity.
In many ways such a policy is both misguided and short sighted as it suggests an increasing emphasis on short term gain rather than the long term viability of the outlet; such a scenario is, I would suggest, much less likely on smaller more manageable estates.
Upon my arrival Everards began by explaining that whilst they have aspirations toward expansion, it is through individual rather than bulk acquisitions, the focus being very much on quality rather than quantity. This would appear an increasingly shrewd move given that some of the larger operators are now having to offload substantial portions of their estates.
The Project William scheme for example involves Everards using their financial resources to purchase dilapidated or rundown buildings, refurbish and then run them in partnership with micro brewers such as Ironbridge. The agreement is free of tie on ales thereby giving aspiring brewers a platform from which to market their beers. Is this not a prime example of what partnership really should be all about?
I asked Everards to give me some idea of what they are looking for from prospective tenants. They stressed that it's all about finding high calibre tenants and then matching them with the right pub, consequently they vet their tenants very carefully.
'Right they all say that don't they?' I hear you say, but you know what, coming from them it had a credible ring about it. Retention levels are after all very high, so they can afford to be choosy.
They certainly look well beyond a tenant's financial ability to run a pub; whilst it is obviously an important factor Everards recognise that the ability of the tenant to run a pub well should be the overriding consideration.
The sole agreement on offer is a tenancy agreement; an appealing prospect for many given that tenancies are looking increasingly attractive in these uncertain times, particularly for those entering the trade for the first time.
It also suggests to me that Everards are not looking to tie their tenants down on long term substantive agreements; they are in effect free to move on at any time as long as they give six months notice.
Prospective tenants are expected to have the funds necessary to take on a pub as the use of loans is discouraged, again an eminently sensible stance to take. Trading is difficult enough in the current climate without the additional worry of trying to service loans which are invariably taken out on prohibitively high rates of interest.
Everards also point out that support levels for tenants are amongst the best in the industry - each BDM is responsible for no more than forty outlets, for many companies the ratio is closer to one in sixty.
Another distinct advantage of small companies such as Everards is that they are not answerable to shareholders. Many would suggest that the problem with the bigger companies is that appeasement of the shareholder is the overriding priority and that this obsession helps account for the shoddy treatment many of their tenants have had to endure.
This is not an issue for Everards and whilst I am not naive enough to suggest that they are not in the business of making money, they are clearly not subject to the same external pressures; consequently they do not feel compelled to pursue profit with the degree of ruthlessness demonstrated by some of their rivals.
Many would suggest that the concept of an 'ethical pubco' is a contradiction in terms; nevertheless I have to say I was impressed by what I saw and heard. I think it is also fair to say that this particular company does not appear to get much in the way of criticism on the forums. Does this not suggest that the majority of tenants are relatively content with their retail partner?
All in all I was impressed by what I heard. I am not going to pretend that we didn't have a difference of opinion on some matters, after all no marriage is perfect. They did however acknowledge that the industry has changed and that some flexibility would be required on both sides, it just comes down to negotiating so that sensible compromises can be reached that both sides are happy with.
I departed feeling that with companies like this, there is hope for the future. They clearly love what they do, care passionately about their pubs and there was an attention to detail which I found immensely reassuring.
There are I suspect, a number of similarly minded small brewers and pub companies out there who are quietly going about their business with the minimum of fuss; seeking to offer good deals to good tenants on the basis of mutual compatibility.
It left me to reflect that if we, as prospective tenants were equally meticulous in the way we scrutinise the credentials of potential retail partners, would this not send a powerful message to those companies frequently lambasted for questionable business practices?
Would it not tell them in no uncertain terms that if they don't seek to emulate the more ethical stance adopted by some of their smaller rivals then we will quite simply take our business elsewhere? This might ultimately prove to be the most effective means of bringing about the reforms so many of us appear to desire.