Battle lines have been drawn, both sides acutely aware of what’s at stake.
Pubcos, desperate to ensure the business model remains intact, continue to preach the gospel of the tied model; low cost entry into the trade, coupled with unrivalled support.
Many tied tenants of course see it somewhat differently; fervently hoping MPs’ platitudes will finally translate into affirmative action, allowing the imbalance in the risk/reward equation to finally be addressed.
Clearly rejuvenated following George Osborne’s unexpected gesture of support, Brigid Simmonds has been out and about, attempting to win hearts and minds.
Her recent comments in the Daily Mail saw the opening salvos of the campaign being fired.
If nothing else, the utterances of ‘Britain’s beer boss’ vividly highlight the mindset of denial that continues to plague the drinks industry; one which continues to block any prospect of tangible progress toward reform.
It would appear everything in the garden looks pretty rosy; self-regulation beginning to deliver real benefits for tenants. Then again, when representatives of the drinks industry go public, many of us tend to focus less on what’s said, rather more on what is omitted.
Brigid maintains scrapping the tie is nothing short of madness; tantamount to “allowing a Burger King manager to sell Big Macs”.
Of course what she is careful not to do is differentiate between cuddly family brewers and the somewhat less cuddly property companies. (That said, many would argue that the brewers have long since shed their fluffy image by leaping onto the pubco gravy train).
I’m sure Daily Mail readers would have been interested to learn that the overwhelming majority of tied pubs are owned by non-brewing companies who positively rub their hands with glee when beer prices rise.
Armed with such information, many would undoubtedly seek reassurance that safeguards are in place to prevent such a privilege being abused. I’m not convinced Brigid would be able to provide any satisfactory answers.
After all, there aren’t any, are there?
Of course, many readers remain blissfully unaware that the impact of duty on a pint pales into insignificance when compared to the impact of pubco pricing strategies. Perhaps this is the true “madness” to which Brigid was referring?
It’s a licence to print money, isn’t it? And oh boy, do they love to print!
The fact of the matter is that the tied model came into being on the presumption that the custodians of our pubs would act with restraint. The naivety on which such decisions were founded can perhaps be forgiven, the political cowardice that has since ensued cannot.
I’m sure Daily Mail readers would also have been intrigued to learn that the tie is about so much more than just beer. As we all know, it brings with it a raft of additional onerous obligations; allowing pubcos to squeeze more and more out of increasingly beleaguered publicans.
It’s surprising Brigid didn’t highlight this. After all, how can we expect Daily Mail readers to reach an informed decision about the real reasons behind pub closures if they don’t have all the facts at their disposal?
She also omitted to mention sky-high rental premiums, inflated dilaps, administrative fees issued at the drop of a hat, machine ties, questionable beer monitoring equipment and a whole host of other income streams, all designed to ensure the debt mountain remains manageable.
Then there’s the posse of bailiffs, whose modus operandi is to hit pubs during peak trading hours, (Friday evenings around 5:30pm is a particular favourite) ensuring they encounter only muted resistance.
I’m surprised she forgot to mention that. No doubt she assumed it wouldn’t be of interest to Daily Mail readers.
Brigid clearly sees things differently; concluding that there’s “lots of innuendo about problems with tied houses, but I haven’t seen anything that bears this out”.
Innuendo? Is she seriously suggesting that four Select Committees have spent countless hours reading fabricated stories and listening to mere gossip and hearsay?
And let’s not forget those bad tenants. According to Brigid there are far too many naïve applicants out there, all dreaming of “a lifestyle change”.
Ah yes, the bad tenant card. How many times have we heard that before? When things begin to go pear shaped, the gut reaction is always to look for someone to blame. So much easier than putting your own house in order, isn’t it?
Brigid goes on to say that “we do have to be really careful about the contract that people are going into and we need to raise our game with the kind of people that we are attracting to our pubs”.
I assume she’s referring to all those budding entrepreneurs we keep hearing about. Anybody seen any recently, because I’m having difficulty tracking them down?
Eye-watering drinks prices; even more fantastical mythical targets. Why they aren’t queuing up to take advantage of all those ‘fantastic opportunities’ is a mystery to me, it really is.
Of course, it’s just possible the entrepreneurs are waiting for a commitment that they’ll be no worse off on a tied agreement than their free-of-tie counterparts. Then again, that’s not something Daily Mail readers need to trouble themselves with, is it?
Their fact of the matter is that the tied ‘partnership’ has in many cases evolved into a complete and utter charade. The interests of tenants and pubcos diverged a long time ago. After all, what kind of partner takes with one hand before returning for what is left with the other?
Property companies are playing Monopoly with their estates; squeezing every last drop out of each outlet before cashing in their chips – this from the very people who profess to be ‘passionate about pubs’!
Truth be told, the tenant has become little more than an inconvenience on the corporate Monopoly board.
On a final note, Brigid neglected to highlight all those countervailing benefits tenants supposedly enjoy. No surprise there I suppose.
Imagine if a somewhat puzzled reporter had decided to delve a little deeper.
Reporter: “So Brigid, what benefits do pubcos offer tenants to offset the onerous terms of the tie? Can you quantify it in monetary terms?”
Brigid: “Err…yes, well…err…yes, well. Oooh is that the time?”
A potentially awkward moment avoided there.
Hopefully when MPs initiate the consultation process, many more awkward moments loom for the queen of spin.