Jump to content

Recommended Posts

The Ivy House in Nunhead, London's first community-owned pub, is offering more community shares, the first since it opened.


Please consider being a part of this fantastic award-winning pub which has been going from strength to strength since being saved from the developers nearly five years ago!


http://www.ivyhousenunhead.com/shares.php

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/186110-ivy-house-community-shares/
Share on other sites

Looking at the financial records it has struggled to make a profit year on year, making a small loss in 15 and a bigger one in 16. before cancelling out those losses with slightly bigger profit in 17. Seems to be just about breaking even overall (after 5 years). At ?100 a share, seems a bit risky.

4. Can I sell my shares?

Community shares are not transferable and there is no open market for them. Members can withdraw their shares by giving three months? notice to the Management Committee and withdrawal will be subject to the Committee?s approval.


The total that may be withdrawn in any financial year is limited to 10% of the total value of all shares, in order to stabilise working capital.


Shares may only be withdrawn at their original value (i.e. ?100 each) and any surpluses are invested for the benefit of the community.


Really brilliant scheme. No incentive.

Blah - break even is a real result considering all factors and I think you're missing the point. This is about investing in a valuable community asset that delivers amenity value for many. If you want to invest for a steady positive return buy a dull index linked fund or take out an ISA. I cant guarantee the same satisfaction however!


The team at the Ivy House have done a truly amazing job thus far in saving the pub and offering lots of activities for all. After 5 years they deserve a fresh injection of support for the next. At least if you care about having choice, independent boozers and live music locally.

Obviously they did not make a profit in the initial years, and nor did they predict that they would.


And I doubt very much that anybody buying community shares is doing it to make money.


We are doing it because we think this is a fantastic initiative, on which a lot of people have worked extremely hard over the last five years.


As for "lack of incentive", Dulwich Fox. Just go there and see the diverse range of people enjoying themselves, and the range of activities going on for people of all ages. That's enough return on my money for me.


The predictable people are still being negative. They were negative even before the pub first opened as a community pub, and despite the fact that it's clearly thriving, they are still being negative now.


It's very very sad to see.

Somewhere on the original Ivy House shares thread (2013?) I remember an amateur builder/footballer/DJ claiming that she had run a bar in the area for 5 years. And that the Ivy House would never work. That dry sales could never hit ?3k a week there. Whilst no doubt it's been a huge challenge, the current team have really proved a lot of doubters/self proclaimed "experts" wrong. And stuck one right up them.

DovertheRoad Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Somewhere on the original Ivy House shares thread

> (2013?) I remember an amateur

> builder/footballer/DJ claiming that she had run a

> bar in the area for 5 years. And that the Ivy

> House would never work. That dry sales could never

> hit ?3k a week there. Whilst no doubt it's been a

> huge challenge, the current team have really

> proved a lot of doubters/self proclaimed "experts"

> wrong. And stuck one right up them.




Indeed. Well remembered.

But if I want to 'donate' money to something, I can pick any number of charities that do something more meaningful than a pub for example. I don't doubt for one moment the achievement here. Just breaking even in any pub these days seems to be a challenge for a lot of publicans. But when a business seeks to sell more 'shares' there is usually a reason for needing to raise the extra finance. Dismissing my point with comments about dull ISA's and stuff is just infantile. I looked at Sue's link. I looked at the financial reports, and I should be able to say what I think from that.

Fair play...

Consistent year on year growth, a pretty decent EBITDA last year considering the state of the pub and restaurant business and it?s putting circa 250k back into the local economy in wages. Not to mention other local services as suppliers.

And it serving the community in the much wider sense.

Jeeze, it?s a better trading unit than most of the portfolio of a national restaurant chain I did a distressed sale process on last year.

Well done...

Blah Blah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> But if I want to 'donate' money to something, I

> can pick any number of charities that do something

> more meaningful than a pub for example. I don't

> doubt for one moment the achievement here. Just

> breaking even in any pub these days seems to be a

> challenge for a lot of publicans. But when a

> business seeks to sell more 'shares' there is

> usually a reason for needing to raise the extra

> finance. Dismissing my point with comments about

> dull ISA's and stuff is just infantile. I looked

> at Sue's link. I looked at the financial reports,

> and I should be able to say what I think from

> that.



As the link I posted above clearly states, over the last five years, many of the people who did not buy shares initially have been asking the Ivy House if more shares could be made available for them to buy, as they wished to have a stake in the pub which they use.


The money raised from the community shares is a very small proportion of the pub's finances, as if you have looked at the financial reports I would have thought you would realise.


Perhaps you need to read more widely on the website.


As noted here


https://www.ivyhousenunhead.com/about.php


the community share offer was opened to raise money for necessary repairs and refurbishment, as well as to provide a trading reserve for the pub. These essential repairs and renovations are still ongoing.


I am not sure why a community pub which brings people together in such diverse ways as chess groups, knitting groups, dance classes, live jazz bands playing while you eat Sunday lunch, children's drama classes, Irish sessions and many forms of other live music, should be considered somehow less worthy of support and not "meaningful" because it is a pub.


Many people also book the lovely ballroom for special events including children's parties and wedding receptions.


And quite apart from these benefits to the local community and beyond, the original group of customers who worked so hard to save the pub succeeded in having its beautiful interior listed, so that it could not become flats.


And they give support and advice to other community groups who are involved in similar initiatives.


I despair really.


Anybody would think you did not want this valuable community asset to succeed, Blah Blah.

So now you are assuming to apply motive in yet another of your trademark essays in reply to a simple short post. This is why you get into rows with people on here again and again. Drop the sarcasm at the end and stop jumping down people's throats when they have a different view to your own.


There is information in your post that I did not know, which is useful. But it still remains that it is a pub, orperating as a business. It is not a charity. And there are plenty of organisations that are not business enterprises or pubs, doing all the things you list above in communities everywhere.


I am not telling anyone not to buy shares am I? All I have said is that as an enterprise it is just breaking even (which is true) and that there is no return on buying shares, which is also true. And finally, it is up to the individual where they choose to donate their money. And it is perfectly fine to have a view on that too.


In reply to Sheff....


This is what all businesses do. They feed into the local economy. I'm just not sure what the purpose of the shareholder equity is within the model of a business, when there is neither no return, nor option to cash in the shares when there are rules like DF cites above.

Blah Blah Wrote:

-----------------------------------------------

>

> In reply to Sheff....

This is what all businesses do. They feed into the local economy. I'm just not sure what the purpose of the shareholder equity is within the model of a business, when there is neither no return, nor option to cash in the shares when >there are rules like DF cites above.


****


The purpose of community shares is to provide a mechanism by which locals can help save independent shops and businesses. Most people who invest in community shares dont care about a financial return. The return comes from feeling part of saving something you value, and in enhancing and preserving a local community asset.


Technically you are incorrect when you say there is no option to caah in the shares. You are also technically incorrect when you say the shares offer no return as shareholders can recieve interest. However, again this is not the reason why people invest in community shares.

Blah Blah said: "I'm just not sure what the purpose of the shareholder equity is within the model of a business, when there is neither no return, nor option to cash in the shares when there are rules like DF cites above."




To add to what DovertheRoad said above, one of the reasons for the new share offer, apart from other people wanting the opportunity to buy shares, is that a number of the original shareholders have left the area and have withdrawn their shares.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...