Threat to micro-breweries
Roy Bailey
The following letter appears in the April issue of CAMRA's 'What's
Brewing', and is reproduced by permission of the author:
* * *
I delivered beer to a local Whitbread pub that has had us as a guest for
approximately 18 months, sales increasing steadily, and customers asking
for the 'local brew' although it is basically a food pub.
The landlady told me the following: having dragged the pub back into the
world from being closed, and doing good trade, they asked Whitbread for
the chance to buy the pub. They were told categorically 'Not for sale'.
A few weeks later, with no warning, they received a letter informing
them the pub was now the property of Enterprise Inns and would they
please sign the enclosed document agreeing never to buy beer from micro-
breweries.
They are trying to fight this but are reaching the point where they must
sign, or lose their tenancy.
I can only assume that big brewers and pub chains want to kill us off.
There is a hidden agenda here and it is imperative that we act together.
Helen Maggs,
West Berskhire Brewery Company,
Newbury, Berks.
* * *
This is a disgraceful state of affairs, but all too common today. It is
bad enough that Whitbread should behave in such an underhand manner, but
it is even worse that non-brewing companies like Enterprise Inns should
be permitted to purchase a property over the heads of the tenants and
then dictate how they run their business. To expect the licencees to
sign a document promising not to stock certain beers as a condition of a
new tenancy is surely a restraint of trade. In such a case, they should
be permitted to retain their existing guest beer rights.
The situation here is similar to the recent one involving The Fleece at
Bretforton with one major exception - the manager of The Fleece was an
employee of the operating company, whereas these licencees are tenants.
What right have Enterprise to blackmail this couple in this way?
Only in the brewing industry are owners of properties permitted to get
away with this sort of feudal behaviour. The Welsh landlord of a
butcher's shop could not forbid the butcher to sell New Zealand lamb,
for instance. Enterprise, of course, are one of those pub-owning
companies set up by former big brewery managers and voluntarily tied to
their former employer. They then have the impertinence to call their
pubs 'free houses'.
I urge everyone who is interested in the survival of micro-breweries and
distinctive local beers to write to the managing director of Enterprise
Inns Ltd (an inappropriate name, under the circumstances) and object to
their policy in the strongest possible terms. Their address is:
Friars Gate
Stratford Road
Solihull
West Midlands B90 4BN
Tel: 0121 733 7700
Fax: 0121 733 6447
Otherwise, as Dave Maggs said to me, before long it will be impossible
to drink the beer of your choice and eat a steak on the bone anywhere.
For more information about The West Berkshire Brewery Company, visit
their website on:
<http://www.icn.co.uk/wbb.html>
--
Roy Bailey
Press Officer, CAMRA West Berkshire
Great Shefford, HUNGERFORD, Berks.
(Replace 'nospam' with 'westberks' to reply)
David Kerrell
Roy Bailey wrote in message ...
>The following letter appears in the April issue of CAMRA's 'What's
>Brewing', and is reproduced by permission of the author:
>Long posting deleted....
In business terms, a company buying a pub is buying a means of distribution
of products. Therefore it's reasonable that they dictate the products
stocked. If they ignore the customers needs they will fail to maximise their
return. Therefore the logical way to stop a new landlord from changing the
product range is to get the existing customers to complain. This will only
work if the new Landlord wishes to keep the existing clientele as a opposed
to targeting youngsters with lager or families with play areas.
--
The Marketer.
mailto:da...@kerrell.demon.co.uk
ExeCamra
In article <891204832.16347.0...@news.demon.co.uk>, "David
Kerrell" <Da...@nospamkerrell.demon.co.uk> writes:
>In business terms, a company buying a pub is buying a means of distribution
>of products. Therefore it's reasonable that they dictate the products
>stocked. If they ignore the customers needs they will fail to maximise their
>return. Therefore the logical way to stop a new landlord from changing the
>product range is to get the existing customers to complain. This will only
>work if the new Landlord wishes to keep the existing clientele as a opposed
>to targeting youngsters with lager or families with play areas.
Given that the bigest owner of pubs in the UK is now a Japanese bank,
exactly what product would they be trying to distribute? Yen ;-)
Sean Kelleher
Chairman, Exeter & East Devon CAMRA
Cider Manager, Great British Beer Festival
John Heelan
In article <XJy1DFAh...@westberks.demon.co.uk>, Roy Bailey
<ca...@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes
(snip)
>
>A few weeks later, with no warning, they received a letter informing
>them the pub was now the property of Enterprise Inns and would they
>please sign the enclosed document agreeing never to buy beer from micro-
>breweries.
>
>They are trying to fight this but are reaching the point where they must
>sign, or lose their tenancy.
>
legal rights to the property from Whitbread? Presumably they have also
bought the legal responsibilities as well? Does not the existing
tenancy continue? What do CAMRA's legal people say on the matter?
> * * *
>
>To expect the licencees to
>sign a document promising not to stock certain beers as a condition of a
>new tenancy is surely a restraint of trade.
arrangement rather than a "property" arrangement and as such subject to
different legal statutes and legal precedents?
>.
>
>The situation here is similar to the recent one involving The Fleece at
>Bretforton with one major exception - the manager of The Fleece was an
>employee of the operating company, whereas these licencees are tenants.
>What right have Enterprise to blackmail this couple in this way?
tenancy?
>
>Only in the brewing industry are owners of properties permitted to get
>away with this sort of feudal behaviour.
Not true...... most franchises are subject to similar restrictions- not
many Shell petrol stations sell Texaco, not many McDonalds sell
BurgerKing products. Few, if any, "temperance" organisations will let
out their properties for the sale and/or consumption of alcohol.
>The Welsh landlord of a
>butcher's shop could not forbid the butcher to sell New Zealand lamb,
>for instance.
Not true- he/she might be able to insist on the stipulation as part of
the consideration for granting the tenancy.
>Enterprise, of course, are one of those pub-owning
>companies set up by former big brewery managers and voluntarily tied to
>their former employer. They then have the impertinence to call their
>pubs 'free houses'.
Possibly CAMRA should complain to the Fair Trading and Advertising
Wathdogs?
>
>I urge everyone who is interested in the survival of micro-breweries and
>distinctive local beers to write to the managing director of Enterprise
>Inns Ltd (an inappropriate name, under the circumstances) and object to
>their policy in the strongest possible terms.
Hear, Hear!
--
John
Dr H
On Sun, 29 Mar 1998, Roy Bailey wrote:
}Only in the brewing industry are owners of properties permitted to get
}away with this sort of feudal behaviour. The Welsh landlord of a
}butcher's shop could not forbid the butcher to sell New Zealand lamb,
}for instance. Enterprise, of course, are one of those pub-owning
}companies set up by former big brewery managers and voluntarily tied to
}their former employer. They then have the impertinence to call their
}pubs 'free houses'.
}
}I urge everyone who is interested in the survival of micro-breweries and
}distinctive local beers to write to the managing director of Enterprise
}Inns Ltd (an inappropriate name, under the circumstances) and object to
}their policy in the strongest possible terms. Their address is:
}
} Friars Gate
} Stratford Road
} Solihull
} West Midlands B90 4BN
} Tel: 0121 733 7700
} Fax: 0121 733 6447
}
Do they have an e-mail address, by any chance?
Roy Bailey
In article <Pine.SUN.3.95.980401...@garcia.efn.org>, Dr
H <hiaw...@efn.org> writes
fax should be reasonably quick and easy.
If your ISP supports the 'fax by e-mail' facility, e-mail your letter
to:
remote-printer.Ted_Tuppen/Enterpr...@441217336447.iddd.tpc.int
Ted Tuppen is the Chief Executive of Enterprise Inns and this should
result in a fax being delivered to him at that number.
Good luck!
--
Roy Bailey
Great Shefford
HUNGERFORD, Berks.
Shawn Torrey
It seems to me that not only is this feudal, but also unconstitutional.
After all, this is a capitalistic society. Enterprise has no right to
inhibit the sale of any brew that their tenants wish to serve as long as
their liquor license is in good standing. Again, it's a case of the rich
getting richer and the poor getting poorer, money talks and micro-breweries
walk. What's happening to America? Let me think on that over another beer.
Roy Bailey wrote in message ...
>The following letter appears in the April issue of CAMRA's 'What's
>Brewing', and is reproduced by permission of the author:
>
> * * *
>
>I delivered beer to a local Whitbread pub that has had us as a guest for
>approximately 18 months, sales increasing steadily, and customers asking
>for the 'local brew' although it is basically a food pub.
>
>The landlady told me the following: having dragged the pub back into the
>world from being closed, and doing good trade, they asked Whitbread for
>the chance to buy the pub. They were told categorically 'Not for sale'.
>
>A few weeks later, with no warning, they received a letter informing
>them the pub was now the property of Enterprise Inns and would they
>please sign the enclosed document agreeing never to buy beer from micro-
>breweries.
>
>They are trying to fight this but are reaching the point where they must
>sign, or lose their tenancy.
>
>I can only assume that big brewers and pub chains want to kill us off.
>
>There is a hidden agenda here and it is imperative that we act together.
>
> Helen Maggs,
> West Berskhire Brewery Company,
> Newbury, Berks.
>
> * * *
>
>This is a disgraceful state of affairs, but all too common today. It is
>bad enough that Whitbread should behave in such an underhand manner, but
>it is even worse that non-brewing companies like Enterprise Inns should
>be permitted to purchase a property over the heads of the tenants and
>then dictate how they run their business. To expect the licencees to
>sign a document promising not to stock certain beers as a condition of a
>new tenancy is surely a restraint of trade. In such a case, they should
>be permitted to retain their existing guest beer rights.
>
>The situation here is similar to the recent one involving The Fleece at
>Bretforton with one major exception - the manager of The Fleece was an
>employee of the operating company, whereas these licencees are tenants.
>What right have Enterprise to blackmail this couple in this way?
>
>Only in the brewing industry are owners of properties permitted to get
>away with this sort of feudal behaviour. The Welsh landlord of a
>butcher's shop could not forbid the butcher to sell New Zealand lamb,
>for instance. Enterprise, of course, are one of those pub-owning
>companies set up by former big brewery managers and voluntarily tied to
>their former employer. They then have the impertinence to call their
>pubs 'free houses'.
>
>I urge everyone who is interested in the survival of micro-breweries and
>distinctive local beers to write to the managing director of Enterprise
>Inns Ltd (an inappropriate name, under the circumstances) and object to
>their policy in the strongest possible terms. Their address is:
>
> Friars Gate
> Stratford Road
> Solihull
> West Midlands B90 4BN
> Tel: 0121 733 7700
> Fax: 0121 733 6447
>
Jon Binkley
Shawn Torrey wrote:
>It seems to me that not only is this feudal, but also unconstitutional.
>After all, this is a capitalistic society. Enterprise has no right to
>inhibit the sale of any brew that their tenants wish to serve as long as
>their liquor license is in good standing. Again, it's a case of the rich
>getting richer and the poor getting poorer, money talks and micro-breweries
>walk. What's happening to America? Let me think on that over another beer.
Hello, America here. Over here, (also capitalistic, by the way)
the owner talks and the tenant walks. If the tenant served
something the owner didn't like, there'd soon be a new tenant.
There's really no direct comparison, though. We have nothing
like tied houses; almost all our bars and retail stores are
independently owned and operated. Even chain restaurants and
bars are unaffiliated with breweries (except for brewpubs,
of course). Our big breweries do their evil, anti-competitive
manipulation through their distribution networks, which are
supposed to be independent but are usually snugly in the
brewers' pockets.
What strikes me as being anti-capitalist, and a threat to the
existence of Real Ale, are the English planning boards and
licensing laws I've seen described in this newsgroup. They
seem to artificially limit the number of pubs that can be in
an area, and prone to arbitrary abuse and manipulation by the
large brewers. Without them it might be easier for an independent
to set up shop and sell as much cask ale as the market would bear.
What is CAMRA's policy on these laws and regulations? How about
an anti-trust law doing away with tied houses altogether?
I wonder if the US and Britain (and the rest of the beer
drinking world for that matter) aren't headed for the
same point from different directions. Here, there was
virtually no Good Beer until about 15 years ago. There's
been a huge increase since then, but it's still only about
5% of the market--the other 95% being ultra-bland lager
like Budweiser. Most Brits coming over here would find
it to be a beer wasteland. Good Beer exists, but it has to
be searched for, and in many parts of the country that can
still be a long, dry search. While the market share of Good Beer
is still increasing, I doubt it will ever exceed 10%. Is
Britain headed DOWNWARD to 10% Good Beer, 90% swill?
Good luck, CAMRA! I hope there'll still be some Real Ale
for me to try when I visit the UK next year!
ExeCamra
In article <6g3opq$o5e$1...@nntp.Stanford.EDU>, bin...@fafner.Stanford.EDU (Jon
Binkley) writes:
> Without them it might be easier for an independent
>to set up shop and sell as much cask ale as the market would bear.
>What is CAMRA's policy on these laws and regulations? How about
>an anti-trust law doing away with tied houses altogether?
Althought the tied house system works heavily against new micro breweries,
it is also a lifeline to many of the regional family breweries who rely on the
guaranteed sales generated by their tied estates to survive. In a free market
many of these would be forced out of business, therby diminishing choice.
Hence Camra's campaings to the EC to allow the tie to continue to be exempt
from the Treaty of Rome (which would otherwise ban it as a restraint of trade).
Bruce Muni
Jon Binkley wrote:
> Most Brits coming over here would find
> it to be a beer wasteland. Good Beer exists, but it has to
> be searched for, and in many parts of the country that can
> still be a long, dry search.
Tell me about it! My favorite pub, Andy's Corner Bar, is over 30 miles
from my house. If your in Northeastern New Jersey (near the George
Washington Bridge) check out Andy's http://www.andyscornerbar.com .
They have a nice tap selection and have 2 constantly rotating real ales
on handpump. They also have a large bottled selection.
John Bennett
On Fri, 3 Apr 1998 Jon Binkley <bin...@fafner.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
--------snip--------------------------------
>I wonder if the US and Britain (and the rest of the beer
>drinking world for that matter) aren't headed for the
>same point from different directions. Here, there was
>virtually no Good Beer until about 15 years ago. There's
>been a huge increase since then, but it's still only about
>5% of the market--the other 95% being ultra-bland lager
>it to be a beer wasteland. Good Beer exists, but it has to
>be searched for, and in many parts of the country that can
>still be a long, dry search.
Rather chillingly this sound like exactly the same situation that
existed here in the UK around 30 years ago!
> While the market share of Good Beer
>is still increasing,
This is some really good news (at least for you in the USA;-)!
> I doubt it will ever exceed 10%. Is
>Britain headed DOWNWARD to 10% Good Beer, 90% swill?
I do sincerely hope not Jon. It's up to us to ensure it doesn't happen
this way. It was only thanks to CAMRA that we achieved the success in
the past and it will be down to CAMRA (or rather its members) to do it
again if the will is still there!
>
>Good luck, CAMRA! I hope there'll still be some Real Ale
>for me to try when I visit the UK next year!
How ironic to think that British real-ale drinkers might have to travel
all the way to the US to get a decent pint of beer in future!;-):-)
Kind regards John
--
John Bennett
Cheddar **To travel hopefully is a better thing than to arrive**
Somerset UK (Robert Louis Stevenson)
Peter Alexander
On 3 Apr 1998 22:45:14 GMT, bin...@fafner.Stanford.EDU (Jon Binkley)
wrote:
>
>
Jon
It's a little more complicated than just abolishing the tie as one
solution - this would almost certainly mean the disappearance of
smallish brewers who depend on their tied houses to be able to produce
and sell good local ales for local markets. Abolition of the tie
would put them at the mercy of the large brewers with their even
larger discounts.
The idea is to restrict the tie to a maximum number of pubs thus not
allowing the big brewers/pub owners to manipulate the market as much
as they do.
Secondly the suggestion that a licensing free for all would help is
equally wrong. This would again allow big brewers in to offer these
new establishments discounts and swamp the market.
Finally we are not yet at the point where good beer is hard to find
except in certain areas but your 90/10 point is probably pessimistic
but not too wide of the mark. What we need to do is concentrate on
quality
Peter Alexander, Chairman, CAMRA Rochdale, Oldham and Bury Branch