Well, we can take at face value the official public announcements made by the various stakeholder groups, or we can read between the lines.
There appears to be just as much politicking in the reactions to the government’s plans as there was in the consultation and lobbying process.
And that’s because no one really believes the game is yet over.
Sure, we have a pretty clear decision from the department for Business, Innovation & Skills (BIS) about the introduction of legislation to regulate the behaviour of the pub companies, and an ombudsman with the powers to shame and fine them if they transgress.
But we also have a political process that allows for amendments to government bills, and which ensures no legislation can bind the hands of any future administration.
Undesirable
Tenant representatives will be pressing for amendments to include the free-of-tie (FoT) or market-rent-only options that were rejected in the Government’s response for reasons that they might cause undesirable consequences.
And they will be working hard on Labour and Lib Dem MPs to secure commitments to strengthen or build on this legislation in the event that next year’s general election delivers a left-of-centre government.
They say the full panoply of their demands is now “within reach”, while masking their obvious disappointment that they didn’t get it all on the first pass.
Meanwhile, the pubcos will not allow themselves to believe that the worst consequences have been permanently avoided, and have moved quickly to reassure the Government that it has gone far enough, with arguments that have bordered on the desperate, including the BBPA’s classic spin that FoT licensees would “be tied to a different distributor or wholesaler, who in return for cheaper beer will insist on loyalty to their brand, or range of drinks”.
Agonising
And they certainly have not publicly celebrated the Government’s relatively soft-touch approach. Lest we forget, there were those among them who publicly denied that any sort of statutory code would result from the process and that self-regulation would prevail (step forward Jonathan Neame).
And there are others who are already agonising about how they will foot the multi-million pound annual bill that is coming their way in adjudicator set-up fees and running costs and the “transfer of value” from pubco to tenant that the Government envisages.
In short, both sides of the argument will consider that the Government’s verdict could have been better, but it could have been worse. In footballing terms (appropriate, as the World Cup begins today), it’s a score draw heading into extra time and maybe penalties.
Conundrum
There are still more questions than answers at this stage of proceedings — all the whos, whens, hows and how muches — and hopefully these will be clarified in the coming weeks and months.
Realistically, the tenanted pubs conundrum was never going to be solved at this stage, as many would have hoped.
Some will still demand more, some will insist on less, and others — whose voices will sadly be drowned out — would simply like the sector to focus on business building rather than further, seemingly endless in-fighting.