Not everyone is opposed to leasing a pub, it seems

I read with interest a letter sent to The Publican this week (see box, below) from Roger Wood, a former Everards tenant, in which he rejected GMB criticism of the Leicester-based brewer and pub operator.

While he acknowledged the price he paid for Everards' beer had indeed been high, Wood said the reason he had decided to rent a pub from the brewer was based on what he called 'the whole package'. "Running a pub is not just about beer prices," he concluded.

This sort of thing will be music to the ears of Everards management, who have often made a point of telling me they pride themselves in the relationship they have with their tenants. It's a similar message from other operators, and not just those who actually produce beer to sell in their own pubs.

Many will undoubtedly pour scorn on Wood's assertion that what swung him in favour of Everards were things like marketing, business development and training packages, arguing that such offers are little more than a thinly-disguised - and often never delivered - move to balance out dodgy prices.

Yet Wood's comments confirm that not everyone is opposed to renting a pub from a regional brewer, despite knowing that there will be a mark-up, significant or otherwise, to be paid when buying beers from them.

The current leasing system is far from ideal for many people running - or thinking about running - a pub. Yet while it might be deemed an inequitable state of affairs to charge high[er] prices for beers, family brewers are in business to make money.

Until the system changes, to the extent that a pub can be profitable for all concerned but which is 'never knowingly undersold', the need for wannabe tenants to be mindful of that old Latin phrase, 'caveat emptor', cannot be stressed enough.