JDW's Tim Martin slams PMA editor's 'bizarre piece of journalism'
- Tim Martin's original comments on the PMA in financial results press release
- Rob Willock's editorial in response - 'No Winners in the Blame Game'
Below - in full - is the letter that was sent to the PMA:
Tim’s reply to Rob Willcock, PMA – article “No Winners in the Blame Game”:
There are strange paradoxes in life which illustrate the fact that we human beings are governed as much by emotions and prejudices as we are by logical arguments, although we often incorrectly think that logic wins the day.
Nowhere is this better illustrated than in the arguments over VAT which have split the licensed trade.
On the one hand, the vast majority, as the respected Cardinal Research has shown, of individual licensees, whether free traders or tenants, support Jacques Borel’s campaign for tax equality with supermarkets. They are broadly supported by the family brewers and a motley crew of corporates, including Wetherspoon, Heineken, Pizza Hut and Matthew Clarke, for example.
The tiny minority, who do not support an active campaign for equality, include the boardroom elites of Enterprise Inns, M&B, Green King, Marston’s, Diageo, Carlsberg and, strangely enough, the Publican’s Morning Advertiser (PMA).
In a recent Wetherspoon trading statement, I criticised the non-supporters and said, in terms, that the widely reported recent reductions in supermarket prices were weighing heavily on the pub trade, including Wetherspoon. It’s doubtful if anyone with a deep knowledge of the industry would argue with that position.
Yet, in a bizarre piece of journalism, the editor of the PMA does just that.
He states that, if tax equality were the main issue, Wetherspoon’s recently reported like-for-like sales of 2.8% would not be superior to those of the supermarkets which average a negative 2 or 3%. The editor then goes on to quote stock broker Douglas Jack and others who state that Wetherspoon is a good “recession brand” but, now that the economy is improving, we will be left on the shelf as customers move upmarket. Douglas Jack may well be right in his analysis, although I personally doubt it, but it’s irrelevant to the tax equality argument.
Pubs have lost half their beer sales to supermarkets in the last 30 years and the trend continues at an alarming rate. About 15% of pubs have closed down in the last 10 years alone and thousands of licensees and companies are under great financial pressure. It is plain as a pikestaff to anyone with a modicum of knowledge of the trade that enormous pressure is being placed on pubs by supermarket prices and that these have been made possible by an unfair tax advantage.
Bizarrely, the editor admits, in reply to a reader, that the tax advantage is unfair but does not deny that he has failed to campaign for a rectification of that position.
The PMA purports to support individual tenants and licensees, as well as being a supporter of the pub industry generally. Rather than clouding the issue by reference to Wetherspoon’s recent sales performance and prospects, the PMA needs to answer the following questions if it is to have any continued credibility as a mouthpiece for the pub industry:
- If, as the editor admits, the VAT disparity between pubs and supermarkets is unfair, why does the PMA not campaign for equality?
- The PMA has criticised the leader of the VAT Club, Jacques Borel, for his conduct of the VAT campaign and questions his financial bona fide and motivation. However, this would not prevent the PMA from conducting its own campaign, so why has it not done so?
- Given that around 90% of licensees in a survey by Cardinal Research clearly support a campaign for tax equality, why does the PMA not align itself with the interests of its readers?
It does a disservice to the industry and is an insult to the intelligence of licensees to confuse the tax issues with arguments about Wetherspoon’s stock market prospects, so let’s have some clear arguments from the PMA on these points.
The editor of the PMA rather dramatically ends his article with a quotation from the bible.
Here is a pithier one from Paul Simon, which will apply to the editor, if he continues to betray the industry which is the raison d’etre for his magazine: “You’re in trouble, boy, and now you’re heading in for more…….” "
