The end of the tied Pubco model?

[MrBen]

A recent consultation around proposals to scrap the tied pub model suggests that doing so would lose more pubs and more jobs versus keeping it. Others looking for change and independence strongly disagree.

Either way, last weeks rumblings in parliament indicate that major industry changes could be coming.....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/11246223/Beer-prices-may-fall-as-beer-tie-is-scrapped.html

(ignore awful embedded ad)

[Otta]

I can't see how this could possibly be a bad thing. Of course the Pubcos will say it's a bad thing, because finally their license to rob people has been torn up.

[Jah Lush]

I put a link up about this on the draft beer thread last week.

Anyway, what Otta said.

[????]

Maybe but remember the initial Beer Orders (MMC report 1986) was meant to free the tie and increse competition in brewing, infact it created a new (worse?) tie between pub-cos and tennants rather than brewers-tennats and lead to a massive comcentartion of brewing in foreighn multi-nationals and a huge reduction in regional brewing, breaking up century old brewers and their brands. The exact opposite of its intentions and ones that the 'evil brewers' at the time said would happen!

[MrBen]

Indeed. Could it be "careful what you wish for?".

Having freedom of choice on stock is a good thing. But would it work for all demographics? Perhaps there is something to be said for mainlining Carling to those pubs where drinkers couldn't give a monkeys about the latest regional craft brew...and yes...plenty of places like that still happily exist......

[steveo]

'tennants' Gotta love those Quids slips

[Otta]

MrBen Wrote:

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

> Indeed. Could it be "careful what you wish for?".

>

> Having freedom of choice on stock is a good thing.

> But would it work for all demographics? Perhaps

> there is something to be said for mainlining

> Carling to those pubs where drinkers couldn't give

> a monkeys about the latest regional craft

> brew...and yes...plenty of places like that still

> happily exist......

Whether it's Carling or a Late Knights ale, the point is that pubs should be paying the going rate for it, not the going rate plus a nice big wedge for the pubco.

[Loz]

Otta Wrote:

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

>

> Whether it's Carling or a Late Knights ale, the

> point is that pubs should be paying the going rate

> for it, not the going rate plus a nice big wedge

> for the pubco.

Originally, the pubs paid a much lower lease so the higher rate paid for the beer was like a risk share between the pubco and the pub.

It would be interesting to see if tied pubs are still paying much lower rentals than free houses. If anything, this new rule should make that clear as the pub will now have a choice.

[DaveR]

As I understand it, the new provisions doesn't prevent pubs operating on the old tied model, but it prevents pubcos from imposing the model i.e. pub landlords (who, confusingly, are actually tenants) have a choice. There are undoubtedly some pubs that make enough money for the pubco/brewer as tied houses to make them worth keeping open, but not enough for the tenant - these are the kind of pubs that have a fresh faced and hopeful new team every 12-18 months, who become increasingly bitter as reality dawns, and then depart to be replaced by the next lot. Some of those pubs will close, some forever, and some will be reborn as businesses that actually serve their local market, whatever that may be. It's difficult to see why any currently popular pubs will close as a result.