Another satisfied customer ?

The Publican Story

This story from The Publican has been sent to you by Sam .
sam.blackdog@virgin.net

Sam said "More choice then "

*******************************************************************
story: Greene King sells 155 pubs to Admiral Taverns for £56m
http://www.thepublican.com/story.asp?storycode=53486&encCode=8565158BC8190453JTBS737226611

*******************************************************************
A service from The Publican.

Advice from a Friendly Enemy

5 September 2005

Dear Mr.

I read with great interest the article in last weeks Morning Advertiser. I wish you all the best with your campaign. I have enclosed copies of documents I have produced, mainly for last year's select committee inquiries into the tied pub trade. You will gather that I am not happy with my employers or the current system of letting pubs.

If I may I would like to offer some suggestions: Your campaign needs to be more visible, the article doesn't say what you are called.

A website would be an ideal way of keeping everyone up to date and promoting your cause.

Have you considered contacting tenants of other companies that also run managed houses, Wolverhampton and Dudley spring to mind. If you are not already doing so you should ally yourselves with other organizations such as Freedom for Pubs, The FSB, LVA etc.

It is widely believed that the Trade and Industry Select Committee will launch a new investigation into the pub trade some time next year. If you and other trade groups are well organized and speak with a united voice you stand a very good chance of getting the changes you are looking for.

A Helping hand

16^th July 2004

Dear

I have chosen to write to all MP's on the Select Committee as I feel it is important that you hear what I have to say. Apologies for not disclosing my name; I work for one of the pub company's you will be hearing evidence from on July 20'". I have a wife and children and cannot afford to be without work. I am sure that the contents of this letter breaches the terms of my Contract of Employment.

The current attitude among my employers is and I quote, "We are going to get away with this one". The feeling is that pub company bosses will come across much better than others that have given evidence and that MP's can have the wool pulled over their eyes by sophisticated business men. In addition there is currently a very well organized PR machine at work. Your enquiry is the most significant thing to happen to the trade in the last 15 years, instead of it grabbing the head lines it is being very well managed by the pub companies.

I have many years experience in the trade. I have worked in different capacities for breweries and pub companies alike. 1 am currently employed as a Business Development Manager. My employer will tell you that my role is to help the fifty or so tenants I look after to improve their business by increasing trade and profitability. However, I can put very little time into this as most of my time is spent recruiting new tenants to replace those that are failing. In addition, I have to manage as best I can those who are failing to ensure that the company is left with as little debt as possible when the tenant leaves.

To an outsider I can only describe the tied pub trade as evil. As a company we take money from individuals that are full of hope and excitement about their new adventure. In my experience as a BDM, 8 out of 10 tenants leave their pub in a worse financial position than before they went into it. Running a pub is a very satisfactory way of life for some and often a long term ambition or dream. We use this as a marketing tool to attract tenants; you only have to look in the press at pub companies recruitment drives.

As landlords we expect to take more than 50% of all profits out of a pub. This is based on selling our pubs beer with either no wholesale discount or by hiking the rent to absorb the discount we intend to give our tenants. I expect that you will not get a straight answer or at best you will get a misleading answer if you ask any of the pub company bosses for a true figure as to what they pay for their beer. Often, deals with brewers are very complicated and have many different parameters, especially when it comes to discounts. For example, I know that one of our suppliers gives us a lump sum, which from an accounting point of view is called a marketing allowance. However the figure is directly derived from the number of barrels we have purchased in a given period and that figure goes straight to our bottom line. Before writing to you I have quickly looked at wholesale prices that are available to individual free house operators and the difference that my tenants pay.

36 Gallons of Carlsberg free trade price is £210.00, Tie trade is £314.00, which is a difference of £104.00 per barrel. This is known in the trade as the discount. Other products discounts vary from £90.00 to £120.00 per barrel.

A case of 24 bottles of Budweiser we sell to our tenants at over £24.00. Normal wholesale price is between £15.00 and £16.00 per case, even the local cash and carry's price is £15.60 a case. This is a difference of over £8.00 per case.

As a company buying from many hundreds or even thousands of pubs, the discounts we achieve are considerably greater than that of a single free trade operator. I believe the discount for most lagers to be in excess of £140.00 per barrel. Unfortunately at my level I do not have access to details regarding all retros we are paid by brewers.

In addition we also take 50% of income generated by gaming machines in the pub, as well as collecting a healthy retro from the nominated suppliers of these machines which our tenants are forced to use.

Taking all this into account, as a company we actually take more than 70 % of the profit that is generated by a pub.

This is simple economics, as landlords we take too much from our individual tenants. When I have questioned this in the past I am told it is to meet shareholder expectations.

I should now explain why I am telling you this. I am simply fed up with ripping off tenants. I cannot count the number of times 1 have seen tenants and their families leave a pub totally broke and distraught, often forced to move in with friends or relatives because the council have been unable or unwilling to house them. At my time of life I don't know what else I would do. I would however like to go to work and feel that I can be honest in what I do. Too many families suffer every year at the hands of greedy pub companies.

Many in the business will say that no one forces a tenant to sign an agreement and take a pub on. This is true, however most new tenants do not properly understand the business and how it works. Most would never go into it if they did. Also, many of our tenants are poorly educated and easy prey for the astute BDM. I am guilty of this and I can make a lot of money in bonuses. The only way for me to do this is to mislead tenants and carry out the wishes of my employers. Example figures we use to show prospective tenants how much profit a pub will make are misleading and inaccurate. On occasion, prospective tenants go to an accountant to have our figures checked over and on every single occasion that this has happened, the accountants have advised the new tenant not to take the pub on.

I believe all the Pub Company representatives that you will meet on July 20t' have recently said that on average their tenants earn an average of £34,000.00 per year, of which £8,000.00 is accommodation. True, 99% of pubs come with a flat. 1 personally would only be prepared to live in 6 of the 50 pubs I manage. 9 of them I wouldn't let my dog live in. £650.00 per month in most areas outside London will rent you a nice 2 or 3 bed house or Flat. I believe we should be paying our tenants to live in some of the accommodation that we provide. As for the £26,000.00 per year average earnings, this is a complete lie. A few tenants in some of the best houses which have a very healthy food trade will earn this or perhaps a bit more. Out of my 50 pubs, less than 5 tenants will have earned this figure in the last twelve months. Most tenants will earn less than £10,000.00 per year and often most spend more than this because they are in blissful ignorance as to the state of their finances and because we tell them when they go into the pub that they will make a certain figure, generally more than £25,000.00. It would also be true to state that most tenants work an average of 65 hours per week. I am sure you will agree that this is more than would be expected in other professions.

You should ask pub company bosses how many changes of tenancy they have each year. Most are very cagey about this and often only quote the number of changes in long term agreements and do not quote the number that change on tenancy at will or other short term agreements. It is not unusual for me to change a tenant in some pubs every few months. Some Police and court authorities have got so fed up with this policy that they are now refusing to issue more than one new license per pub a year in some areas.

Because there is not always a ready supply of new tenancy for some pubs, my company and others are forced to pay management companies to run pubs for us until we can recruit new tenants. It would not be unusual for us to pay a company £1,000.00 one

month to run a pub on our behalf and the next month charge a tenant rent of £1,200.00 per month when it is obvious that the pub is losing money.

There is much talk in the trade about a partnership between pub companies and their tenants. The truth of the matter is that the Pub Companies hold a security bond of many thousands of pounds and it is totally absolved from any of the overheads involved in running the business. It takes over 70 % of the profit generated in the business, tells the tenant what to buy, where to buy it from and how much he is to pay. I can assure you it is not much of a partnership and I often feel like a soldier carrying out the wishes of a brutal dictator rather that a business manager.

All that said, most people like myself are far too afraid to say anything in public. It's not just that we would lose our job, but would never be able to get another job in the industry again.

Personally, I believe that the only way forward is to remove the tie and other draws on a tenants income so that tenants and consumers can get a fair deal. Some have said recently that if the tie was removed brewers would force up prices. This is totally incorrect. There is already a thriving free trade market and that's why everyone makes a fuss about the differences in wholesale prices. In reality, brewers would have to work harder and prices would actually come down, not only so tenants could make a better living but also to give a fairer price to their customers. You have to ask yourself why it is that a pub company managed house can sell beer 40p per pint cheaper than the same company's tenant next door for the same product.

I have enclosed a summary account of one of my better pubs so you can see where the money actually goes. The figures are real and have been checked by an accountant. When I put the current tenant into this pub the calculation produced by our computer system showed the tenant he would make more than £27,000.00 per year. He is obviously very upset that this is not the case, especially as he is trading the pub at a higher level than we originally forecast. Ask my employer how their calculations work and how they work out their rent. You should then compare these to real life examples from ordinary tenants.

Please don't be fooled by the pub companies example of flagship houses, the vast majority of pubs run by all pub companies are in a less than satisfactory state of repair.

Once again I apologise for the nature of the letter, but am confident that MP's of all parties are committed to stamping out injustice.

Yours truly

Mr Nigel Evans MP

9 Railway View

Clitheroe

Lancashire

BB72HA

21st August 2004

This is the second time I have written to you with regard to the ongoing inquiry into the tied pub trade. Once again please accept my apologies for not signing this letter, but as I said in my last letter I would find myself unemployed if my employers knew I was providing information.

I have studied at length the transcript from the hearing on July 20th 2004. 1 am amazed at the level of contempt shown by, my employers and pub co bosses in general. I must congratulate the committee in not allowing those giving evidence to control the session as indeed they had hoped to.

There is no doubt that the committee has been lied to. Upon reading the transcript have noted many occasions where the committee has been mislead by carefully worded answers, but in other cases the committee has been blatantly lied to.

I am able to offer a response to what Enterprise Inns and Wolverhampton & Dudley Brewers had to say; I am current employee of one and previous of the other.

I hope that you will be able to corroborate what I have had to say and with evidence and submission from others.

On another note I have included within the attached documents a photocopy of Mr. Stephen Oliver's response to his experience before the committee. (Published in the Morning Advertiser) I am sure you will join me in condemning Mr. S Oliver for showing no respect and a flagrant disregard for the democratic process. When I read this article I was disgusted, I believe it reinforces the point that pub co's believe that there are almighty and have no consideration for anyone or any thing other than their bottom line.

I thank you In advance for your time and patience.

Response to Answers Given By: Enterprise Inns; Wolverhampton & Dudley Brewers

Question 315: Mr. Tuppen used the phrase, "lambs to the slaughter." I have heard him use this on two other occasions, once at a drunken do where he was congratulating a number of us on how well we had improved capital returns on individual pubs. The second time was during a management meeting where Mr Tuppen left us in no doubt as to how we were to make Enterprise Inns profitable. It is interesting that he chose to use that phrase in front of a group of MP's. Personally I think it was a Freudian slip on his part. The rest of his answers to this question are nothing more than an exaggerated glossy overview. Potential tenants are provided with misleading and out of date information. Interviews are primarily concerned with how much money a potential tenant has and how much they are able to borrow. In addition, as a company representative we are trained how to manage conversation and steer them into a direction which suits the things that we want to talk about.

Question 317: In my experience, all pub co's will take on a tenant that has money and the ability to hold a license. It is the norm to take a less than acceptable tenant either because they are willing to pay more rent or because there is simply no one else.

Question 318: The figure quoted is a clever answer. Mr Tuppen uses the term, `new entrance,' and portrays this as the annual turnover of tenants within the business. The figures quoted actually refer to those entering the business with no prior experience of the pub trade. This figure does not represent those who already have experience within the trade. As I'm sure is the case in other sectors, pub tenants often find themselves in a rut, moving from pub to pub, earning little or no money, often getting into debt because they have no other vocation or opportunity in life. More now than ever before, tenants find themselves working long hours and earning little or no money, but are able to keep a roof over their heads and would find it impossible to find affordable accommodation either to rent or buy. The majority of pub tenants are of maturing years and would find it very difficult to get a job that pays well enough to provide a living and accommodation. Make no mistake, pub companies take advantage of this. They know the tenant does not want to lose the roof over their head. Many tenants feel trapped, working only to pay for the accommodation within the pub and not given an opportunity to earn a decent living. I am sure you will find that the turnover of tenants at Enterprise has always been 30% to 40% of Enterprises estate per annum, with some pubs changing 2, 3 or even 4 times a year.

Question 326: Potential tenants are not vigorously encouraged to get independent advice and even when they do Enterprise will not change the lease, rent or other terms. On occasions after offering a pub to a new tenant, the potential tenant will inform us that they are going to an accountant to get advice. At that point I have personally put there application in the bin and go to a second choice if there is one, simply because I know that a good accountant will advise a potential tenant against taking the pub on. This business of independent advice is a smoke screen. As a manager I know which pubs are profitable and how much the company is going to take out of the business, although there is no official system to hold this information, there are only the company models which are not based on reality.

Question 328: Mr Tuppen says that 84% of his tenants are, "pretty happy°. He does not tell you how the survey was compiled and the number and type of tenants surveyed. In my experience with Enterprise, the number of tenants happy with the company who have been a tenant for 3 years or more would be less than 40 % and

those who have run a pub for up to 3 years would be less than 10%, with less than 5% quoting Enterprise as excellent.

Question 330: The figure quoted on new tenants joining the business by lease assignment or entry though Enterprise as a 50/50 split is based on those entering a leased house and does not represent the whole estate. I believe the figure would be more like 85% via Enterprise and 15% through assignment.

Question 334.: The cooling off period is another smoke screen. It is not well publicised and in most cases a tenant would find it a very expensive exercise. Taking on a pub is a big undertaking. For most it involves moving house, kids schools, license costs, etc. not to mention the loss of face most would feel having left a business after being in it for just a few weeks.

It is important to mention that most new tenants are told that it will take several weeks to build the trade and establish themselves as licensees. A new tenant would be but under a lot of pressure to run the pub for several months in order to build the trade to an acceptable level.

Question 339: All pub companies talk of a partnership with their tenants. The very definition implies that there is sharing of responsibilities and profits. The tenant bares personal responsibility for all the overheads and increasingly so the maintenance costs of the whole building. This leaves little or no responsibility for the pub company. Compared with normal free trade accounts the pub company can actually provide less support and help because at the end of the day, a free trader can go wherever he likes to purchase his goods. The supplier knows this and makes every effort to retain his custom. The reality is that when it comes to pub partnerships most pub companies should be reported to the advertising complaints commission, because there is no equality in the relationship what so ever.

Question 342: Mr. Tuppen says that he believes that more than 40% of tenants in his estates take independent advice; he has absolutely no data to support this. I believe the figure that took advice and still went into the pub to be less than 10%, of course more do take advice and do not take the pub on.

Question 349: Mr Townsend talks about other revenue streams such as letting, accommodation and food. This is yet another smoke screen; whilst some pubs do very well out of food, they are few and far between. There success is normally attributed to the expertise of the tenant. Those really good tenants tend not to stay in the tied sector for very long. When they do a good job of building up food trade we look to increase their rent dramatically. More often than not, the tenant will leave because they are not willing to pay increased rents. Then we are able to market the pub based on the last guys success, therefore adding a premium to the future rent. Replacing the tenant with one of far less competence at running a good business, but willing to take on a business that is doing well, without realizing that it is only doing well due to the skills of the last tenant. When a really good tenant leaves so does the high level of trade.

Mr Tuppen talks about a lessee who it was discovered was unsuitable to run the pub he had taken on assignment. The turnover fell by half to £100k and still the lessee was able to sell the business and make a profit of £150k in doing so. These figures do not add up; a pub taking £100k is very likely to be making a substantial loss and as such would be rendered worthless. This should be investigated because either Mr. Tuppen has made the whole thing up or the new incumbent has been provided with false information. As Mr. Tuppen says in his evidence Enterprise assisted in the sale.

These figures are so far out that I wonder if Mr. Tuppen has not simply got carried away with his story telling, he certainly has a reputation for exaggeration.

Question 350: My employers were particularly concerned about this question because our monthly management reports clearly outline the profit we make and they were very concerned that these might be requested. Unfortunately the question was not pushed enough; Mr Tuppen and co managed the question very well. The fact is that most pub co's and brewers aim to take 50% of the profit based on their estimates of the trade and expenses, but within their calculations they do not take into account wholesale profits from the sale of goods to their pubs. Nor do they take into account revenues from royalties (often referred to as backhanders) from AWP suppliers and others. If these profits are then factored into the figures, the pub co takes over 70% of available profits but has no responsibility for any of the overheads and often increasingly so, responsibility for repairs to the building.

Question 351: In his response Mr. Tuppen quotes a figure of failures within the tenanted and lease sector of 4% compared with an overall business failure rate of 20%. Mr Juppen was not asked to qualify his remarks, but having researched them 1 believe he was quoting the rate of failures where limited companies are found to be insolvent. The fact is that very, very few individuals run their pub under the guise and protection of a limited company, generally because pub co's either will not deal with limited companies or make it very difficult and unpractical for tenants to do so. This is yet another example of Mr. Tuppen deliberately trying to mislead the committee. In my experience as an area manager, during which time I have had over 600 different pubs under my control, most leases and tenancies fail, certainly the figure is more than 80% overall. I term a tenant or lessee failing if they leave their business in a worse financial position than when they went in to it. This of course becomes a very grey area, because the vast majority get out before being made bankrupt. This means that the statistics are open to abuse by Pub co bosses.

Question 352 362: Mr. Tuppen does a very good job of not explaining exactly how rents are set. Make no mistake, no Pub co wants their tenant to go bust, it serves no purpose. However, the pub co does expect to take as much profit out of the business as possible. It effectively makes for some very cheap labour. The problem then is that the tenant believes he should be earning a good living and spends more than he can afford. The fact is that very few tenants would go bust or leave their pubs if they firstly understood and secondly were happy to earn either nothing or just a few thousand pounds a year.

Question 367 370: The business of upward only rent reviews is another smoke screen. At the point of a rent review the tenant or lessee is a sitting duck (or as Mr Tuppen would say, "lambs to the slaughter'). The pub co will be very clear as to the future rent it wants, the tenant is forced into a comer, and arbitration is long winded and expensive. The tenant's whole life and that of his family is centered around the pub so his choice is simple, go or agree to the new rent. I have never known a pub company to go to a tenant offering to reduce his rent at the point of rent review. Generally, the pub co wants to take more of the profit. Some managers feel that the company must have got the initial rent wrong if the tenant has survived long enough to get to a rent review and is therefore making too much money. I have had personal experience of senior managers attempting to put up rents or alter discount structures long before a rent review or end of an agreement because the tenant is doing far better than expected and the company felt the tenant was retaining far too much profit.

Furthermore, the business of rent reviews becomes an increasingly moote point because the majority of tenants and lessees don't get that far.

Questions388: Mr. Evans makes the point that some tenants are scared to write to the committee. He is right; tenants who make trouble often find themselves with a very unhelpful landlord and got rid of as quickly as possible. Furthermore the pub trade can be very insular; there will be many tenants who are simply unaware of the committee's inquiries. The trade press is geared to free trade and pub co's and there is no effective trade organization.

Mr. Tuppen refers to evidence given by Mr. Tony Payne. I would urge the committee to look carefully at who the FLVA represent and whether or not their opinions represent the vast majority of tenants and lessees.

Question 393: Mr Tuppen tries to compare the tied pub trade to McDonalds or Pizza Hut. I am no expert on these franchises but I understand that there is very little to compare with these very different businesses. He also lies about the overall rents charged being compared to normal commercial rents of 7.8%. I can assure you that internal company documents for all pub companies I have worked for will show very different figures, I only hope you have the powers to cease these without warning; that way you will have a clear picture.

Question 396 496: Mr. Tuppen has tried to mislead the committee over the, "price busters" offers. These offers are only available to lessees whose volumes are falling because they are unable to compete with new super pubs, mainly in city centers that are charging very little for a pint. Mr. Tuppen fails to explain that the system is only in place to ensure that Enterprise does not lose volume and that the tenant agrees to sell beer at very low prices and subsequently a low margin.

Question 413: Mr Tuppen refers to a sample of Enterprises estate. I am not absolutely sure what has been presented to you in Appendix 9, however if it is based on the survey that I think it is, then the figures are derived from the top 10% of each individual managers estate. There are tenants eaming less than £11,000.00 per year in the top 10% of the estate. I believe that the survey was compiled using volume figures and rent achieved per barrel sold. This is a perfect example of how Pub companies have become experts at manipulating figures.

Question 429: Mr. Findlay fails to mention that there are a very large number of WDB managed pubs that operate a very low pricing policy in close proximity (i.e. walking distance) to WDB tenanted pubs. The difference in what a tenant can sensibly afford to sell a pint at and the prices that the managed house sells a pint is often more than 60p a pint.

Question 432: Make no mistake, Mr Oliver is scare mongering. There is no evidence to suggest that a brewery would have to close if the tie was removed. It does of course make a very good sound bite for the media.

Question 433: Mr Oliver quotes that WDB offers nearly 40 real ale brands during the course of the year. Only a small number of these are available to WDB's tied houses; all are available to WDB managed houses and free trade customers. In addition, those available to tied trade are not available freely. Tenants have to sign up to a scheme which requires a minimum order of a number of different products, some of which don't sell and therefore tenants are put off from signing up to the scheme. This is the whole idea because it means volumes are driven around WDB core products.

Question 440: Having had personal experience of the training Mr. Oliver talked of, I can assure you that it is geared to make the BDM better equipped to manage tenants and get more out of them to benefit the company.

Question 444 463: The rent panel at WDB was initially set after WDB finished its integration of Bank's, Marston's and Mansfield. At that time the business was in a complete mess partially due to the varying degree of competence of the amalgamated number of BDM's, most of whom could not be trusted to complete their expenses properly let alone set rents.

At the time the rent panel was introduced it was marketed as an independent safe guard, to protect the business as a whole, both the company and tenants. The reality is that those who sit on it have very little idea of the complexities and difficulties of running an individual pub and therefore are not particularly objective. It is also true to say that the chairman is slightly brainwashed by the company line. For example, in working out a rent, the company does not make any allowance for product wastage that the tenant might experience. The best example of this is Marston Pedigree. WDB sells a tenant a barrel of Pedigree (36 gallons), but only 35 gallons at best is fit for sale at the pump because it contains a large amount of sediment. However the WDB bases its calculations on the tenant being able to sell all of it. Furthermore, there is no allowance made for line cleaning. In my experience this represents a difference in overall gross margin of 6%, which has a big impact on a pub's profitability; for the average pub about £9000.00.

The rent panel is now viewed by many as a source of frustration. There is now more than ever a greater emphasis on what is in it for the company and very little consideration given to what the tenant is likely to make.

Mr Oliver refers to the fact that 23 rent reductions were made by the rent panel in its first two years, what he neglected to tell the committee is that most of the rent reductions were made in pubs that used to be in the Mansfield Estate. At the time WDB acquired Mansfield, the company was perhaps the worst in the business at over renting pubs. Some of these instances were on the back of massive refurbishment projects that were only passed by the then Mansfield board, based on unrealistic projections presented to them.

Question 470: Mr Oliver talks about levels of discount; he has completely misled the committee. WDB pubs that get the higher levels of discount have to pay a discount rent. WDB works out what they think the tenant is likely to achieve in discount based on the company opinion of what trade they think the pub should be doing. More than 95 % of this figure is then added to the rent as discount rent. If the tenant does well and trades the pub above WDB expectations then he truly earns discount, however once you have factored in the extra rent and the volume required before the tenant is in front, I doubt that the actual discount per barrel comes out at more than £5.00 per barrel. On the other hand, if the tenant trades the pub at less than WDB expectations then WDB still collects the extra rent.

Mr Oliver also fails to mention that this system has caused cash flow problems for some tenants due to seasonal variation in trade and the fact that rent is payable in equal installments.

In addition it does concern me that Mr. Oliver has portrayed this scheme as an invention to help tenants, this couldn't be further from the truth. The scheme was

designed to mislead the city in to believing that WDB's rent role was higher than it actually is. This has helped the share price and keeps large investors happy because rent is guaranteed within an agreement, whereas wholesale profit is not and only derived from actual sales. You could say that WDB are having their cake and eating it.

Question 473: 1 am surprised at Mr. Oliver's answer to this question as it is a bare faced lie. If challenged I am sure he will now defend himself by blaming his subordinates in supplying him with incorrect information. The real figure of "chum" is over 40°/a. Some pubs can have a new tenant every few months, others once a year and other tenants are forced to stay for three years because there is no official break clause within the three year tenancy agreement. It is true that some geographical areas are worse than others and some BDM's are better than others at retaining tenants. There are official company records about the number of new agreements issued in a given period and you should ask to see these perhaps via the company auditors.

Question 477: The figure of an average tenants earning being £27,000 plus benefit in kind of £8,000 is quoted once again. I am unsure as to where this figure originated as it is certainly not based on any fact, although it has been suggested that Mr. Oliver felt the need to quote a figure similar to that quoted by other pub co bosses for PR reasons. 1 have covered this area before but once again it would be the exception for any tenant to make the figure quoted and indeed most tenants earn very little or lose money.

Question 483 486. As with all Pub co's the beer tie and gaming machine tie is wholly important because it makes the trade complex and obscure. The removal of that would leave rent as the only source of revenue which is totally transparent. An example of this is simple. Take an average tenanted pub that takes £2500 £3000 gross a week. If a pub company tried to market that pub with a rent of £50,000.00 plus a year there would be no takers, in fact it would be seen as a rip off. However it is easily marketed at £20,000.00 per year rent, but when all the other sources of income are added in, the pub company nets over £50,000.00.

This is why we left Greene King !!!!