Jump to content

The old Mag Pub on Lordship Lane (The Patch)


gazza_g

Recommended Posts

I think wait a week and all will become clear - obviously there's some internal unravelling/negotiating going on and I'm happy to watch from afar in the hope that it all sorts itself out (as long as it doesn't take too long!). As Cora said there's no harm in pledging cos you don't pay unless Patch is/are successful - and I'm particularly interested in both the science of their urban kitchen garden and the community outreach work being thought through. Would love my kids to better understand where their food comes from and get more involved in how it gets from garden/smoke house/dairy/field etc to plate :)

It was their opening party. They had a DJ.


The Mag now has a large fruit machine and a telly over the bar.


There was no food because the chef didn't turn up.


There were a few people dancing at one point then the place emptied. But we were there early and left about 9 to eat elsewhere.


Lovely friendly bar staff but otherwise a strange evening. And apparently it wasn't their opening night as it has been open since Tuesday.


On another topic , I was looking again at what the Patch people are saying

I can't understand the talk of an independent community owned pub. How can it be independent when it'stied to Enterprise Inns and how can it be owned when it's leased?

Sue read the information the 'Patch' people have published, the community are being asked to support the veggies they are hoping to grow on site using hydroponics- they say they have all the funding for the pub lease itself - it's not another Ivy House! Maybe Ryedelema, post above, has the right idea - lets see what happens!

I have read it.


It says the Patch will be fully independent



Then it says it will be owned by the local community



It appears to be talking about the whole gastropub, not solely the food production side of things.

.


How would you interpret it? It is right at the start of the article on the kickstart site


The Patch can clearly not be Ilike the Ivy House, but it appears to be talking as if it is.

UncleBen Wrote:

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

> Methinks Sues only interest in this, and other

> pubs is to propagate folkie nights.


Xxxxxx


What are you talking about?


We moved our Folk nights from the Mag months ago and have no intention of moving them back there.


What has that got to do with anything on this thread???



I visit many pubs locally which have no connection whatever to putting on music there. What a very strange thing to say!

Update email from The Patch:

"Happy Easter everyone,

Scheduled to sign lease this week! Which will mean that the temporary tenants that are in will leave quite quickly after that... This is a good time to really spread the word and get people onto kickstarter and start pledging!

Thanks from The Patch team!"

As BNG (welcome!) has said all the info on the Patch plans is on Kickstarter in writing and on the video Sue and Andy - you pledge money for the ?17k that is going to be community food grown at the back of the pub - the lease of the pub will be owned, it seems, by Arnold and his team who have all the money in place to buy the lease they said, which they hope to sign this week.


Also it says that if you pledge money towards this ?17k it will only be taken up once they hit their target and proceed

- I suggest those of you in ED that want to support local business (William Rose are in this it seems too)and a boost to the Mag - which is long overdue and a brilliant venue - pledge!


PandG

PandG, what I am querying is the wording on the Kickstarter site, as I said before



I am clear what the actual situation is but I cannot understand how a lease tied to Enterprise Inns can be described as an INDEPENDENT venture

.


Also buying a lease is not at all the same as owning the pub.


There now appear to be at least five threads on here about the Mag/Patch

PandG Wrote:

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

> She just google leasehold!


Xxxxx


I know what leasehold means.


I also know what independent means.


I also know that the pub will remain owned by Enterprise Inns and that there will therefore be restrictions on the leaseholder


What I STILL don't understand, and you have not yet explained, is how these things can somehow co-exist.


Leased or owned?


Independent or tied to Enterprise Inns?


It can't be both.

Hi Sue,


I get the impression (perhaps wrongly) that you have concerns with Arnold's plans for The Mag. It's probably very difficult for individuals trying to establish a new business, to buy outright the freehold of a pub. Perhaps the people most likely / in the best position to do this, are going to be large breweries who are the opposite of independent.


It might therefore seem that the closest alternative is an individual who can purchase the lease and essentially run the pub in the manner they choose whilst honouring their contract. I think that Arnold's plan appears to be a very happy solution to this issue.



Given your concerns do you have any other proposals as to how the site could be used in order to ensure a community focused pub with its own character and USP? I for one am rather pleased that this thread isn't at least discussing whether the site could be turned into M&S or Waitrose!


They seem to recognise that we will all have some questions that need answering and another post suggests we direct them to their Facebook page:


www.facebook.com/dulwichpatch

Miss Wiggy, I have no objections at all to the plans for the pub and I will be delighted if it all works out.


It would be a great addition to the area and certainly better than football, a fruit machine and (imo) a pretty rubbish DJ playing pretty dire music.


What I am querying is what on the face of it appears to be a degree of misrepresentation in some of the information being provided.


I have tried to explain why.

Ideally if they are purchasing the lease for x no. of years they should steer clear of stock purchasing options. If they do then they can be independent in the fact they have no restrictions on what produce/stock they sell - that is as about as indepedent as it will get. I am guessing the accounts don't paint a great picture so they may try to get away with stock purchasing but companies like Punch Taverns "plc" and Enterprise Inns "plc" would, I assume, tell you where you go - it wouldn't sit well with the shareholders. If they are lucky enough to negotiate no stock purchasing then I also assume the rent/lease cost would reflect that - it is part of a much larger business portfolio after all and they will want bang for the buck. Excuse the phrase.

As MissWiggy said - They seem to recognise that we will all have some questions that need answering and another post suggests we direct them to their Facebook page:


www.facebook.com/dulwichpatch


why not go on their FB page as requested to ask any questions?

When I last looked their Facebook page had no additional information to what is already on here.


As they are using this forum and started several new threads over the weekend, why can they not respond to queries on here?


I use Facebook very little and don't particularly want to have to use it to glean information about a local venture which is being heavily pushed on here.

Let's be honest, "heavily pushed" is an exaggeration. Yes there have been some duplicate threads, but "nonold" appears to have made a grand total of 7 posts. So expecting a response to individual queries on this forum is probably a bit optimistic.


Yes, he'll be contracted to buy draft beer from Enterprise. But if he has autonomy in all other aspects, then I don't see the problem with the "independent" tag (especially as he's clearly more interested in the food side of things).

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Latest Discussions

    • In what way? Maybe it just felt more intelligent and considered coming directly after Question Time, which was a barely watchable bun fight.
    • Yes, all this. Totally Sephiroth. The electorate wants to see transformation overnight. That's not possible. But what is possible is leading with the right comms strategy, which isn't cutting through. As I've said before, messaging matters more now than policy, that's the only way to bring the electorate with you. And I worry that that's how Reform's going to get into power.  And the media LOVES Reform. 
    • “There was an excellent discussion on Newscast last night between the BBC Political Editor, the director of the IFS and the director of More In Common - all highly intelligent people with no party political agenda ” I would call this “generous”   Labour should never have made that tax promise because, as with - duh - Brexit, it’s pretending the real world doesn’t exist now. I blame Labour in no small part for this delusion. But the electorate need to cop on as well.  They think they can have everything they want without responsibilities, costs or attachments. The media encourage this  Labour do need to raise taxes. The country needs it.  Now, exactly how it’s done remains to be seen. But if people are just going to go around going “la la laffer curve. Liars! String em up! Vote someone else” then they just aren’t serious people reckoning with the problem yes Labour are more than a year into their term, but after 14 years of what the Tories  did? Whoever takes over, has a major problem 
    • Messaging, messaging, messaging. That's all it boils down to. There are only so many fiscal policies out there, and they're there for the taking, no matter which party you're in. I hate to say it, but Farage gets it right every time. Even when Reform reneges on fiscal policy, it does it with enough confidence and candidness that no one is wringing their hands. Instead, they're quietly admired for their pragmatism. Strangely, it's exactly the same as Labour has done, with its manifesto reverse on income tax, but it's going to bomb.  Blaming the Tories / Brexit / Covid / Putin ... none of it washes with the public anymore  - it wants to be sold a vision of the future, not reminded of the disasters of the past. Labour put itself on the back foot with its 'the tories fucked it all up' stance right at the beginning of its tenure.  All Lammy had to do (as with Reeves and Raynor etc) was say 'mea culpa. We've made a mistake, we'll fix it. Sorry guys, we're on it'. But instead it's 'nothing to see here / it's someone else's fault / I was buying a suit / hadn't been briefed yet'.  And, of course, the press smells blood, which never helps.  Oh! And Reeve's speech on Wednesday was so drab and predictable that even the journalists at the press conference couldn't really be arsed to come up with any challenging questions. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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