Jump to content
Manx Forums, Live Chat, Blogs & Classifieds for the Isle of Man
Tempus Fugit

Pubs closing

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, gettafa said:

Who owns the Regent Street, whatever it is?

Bloody immigrants! Coming over here and opening nice Bars that everyone wants to go to. Pahh!

Irish I think, other developments in the pipeline as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Non-Believer said:

There's the catchment area of Baldrine and Baldrine Park. I bet some of them make their way the opposite direction to get to Laxey.

LA is also 5 minute's drive from Onchan catchment area. If people weren't going there from Onchan it's because of what wasn't on offer?

Personal guess? Poor service and zero inward investment in the place, usual brewery policy of milk it to the max and spend bugger all on it unless it involves turning it into a soulless box. Then try and flog it as a near ruin (a la Brit Ramsey).

But you can't use it as a pub.

'ere we go for tonights round, cheers, Slaynt as shee.

N-B. you pose questions, make statements, yet the answers are within your own thoughts.

There's a catchment area..........Really? That big??? Are there pavements there?

5mins from Onchan.................Walk fom Onchan? Drive and then not have a drink? What is the point of a Pub if you cannot drink?

Zero investment?....................... £40,000 in recent years.

Milk it to the max............ see above but rem. it was not theirs to milk. It was tenanted.

Then try and flog it as a near ruin.............. It became available because of the failure of the Tenant. H&B had the option to take it on their selves or sell it! They chose the latter.

Cut the competition, why not, makes business sense. Was it a ruin? Has been lived in for years! Have  you seen the accommodation?

Italian Fella??? Swarthy guy, dark hair? English/Manx I think?

Sunday Lunch is always going to be a success if handled correctly, can't go far wrong with the low expectation of the customers. This is because the customers are not out for a drinking session, just for the grub.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Kopek said:

Sunday Lunch is always going to be a success if handled correctly, can't go far wrong with the low expectation of the customers. This is because the customers are not out for a drinking session, just for the grub.

BUT many people fancy a pint or a glass of wine with their Sunday lunch and the covenants expressly prohibit any form of alcohol sale or licensed activity as a condition of sale so it’s no use even as a restaurant. They have literally left it valueless as a potential business. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 "They have literally left it valueless as a potential business "

I think it's position and recent performance have done that?

A half pint or a small glass of wine are OK to drive on???  For Sunday lunch, that is not the important parameter, it is the food.

Regards the Restaurant Licence, it would be relatively easy to extend that to an On-Licence, thus getting around the breweries intention.

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Kopek said:

 "They have literally left it valueless as a potential business "

I think it's position and recent performance have done that?

A half pint or a small glass of wine are OK to drive on???  For Sunday lunch, that is not the important parameter, it is the food.

Regards the Restaurant Licence, it would be relatively easy to extend that to an On-Licence, thus getting around the breweries intention.

Not really. Would you buy a taxi where the seller has said you can own it but you have no right to drive it or put it fuel in it? That’s basically expecting full value for an asset that’s worthless. If position and performance of the LA was the issue they wouldn’t need the covernants would they? As there is nothing to protect if you go down that route. They are worried that if they sell it without covernants on it someone might actually make a success of it and show them up! So as an alternative they’ve made it all but worthless to whoever buys it. 

Edited by thesultanofsheight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They, H&B, don't want competition, that is for sure. Who would blame them, well, anyone with business acumen would not.

So, sell it as a Pub, it survives for a while, takes money away from H&B, then goes the same way it has now!

That's a loss of income to the Brewery! Why should they set their selves up for that? Would the shareholders of H&B take a similar view to you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Kopek said:

They, H&B, don't want competition, that is for sure. Who would blame them, well, anyone with business acumen would not.

So, sell it as a Pub, it survives for a while, takes money away from H&B, then goes the same way it has now!

That's a loss of income to the Brewery! Why should they set their selves up for that? Would the shareholders of H&B take a similar view to you?

Yes that’s business but then don’t then go moaning to planning that “We can’t sell it, we need change of use to develop for residential” As you can sell it. But instead what you have chosen to do is devalue it so much as a business asset by sticking covernants over it that nobody in their right mind would buy it off you. At that stage planning should see through it and tell them to sling their hook. The whole thing is a sham. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Kopek said:

'ere we go for tonights round, cheers, Slaynt as shee.

N-B. you pose questions, make statements, yet the answers are within your own thoughts.

There's a catchment area..........Really? That big??? Are there pavements there?

5mins from Onchan.................Walk fom Onchan? Drive and then not have a drink? What is the point of a Pub if you cannot drink?

Zero investment?....................... £40,000 in recent years.

Milk it to the max............ see above but rem. it was not theirs to milk. It was tenanted.

Then try and flog it as a near ruin.............. It became available because of the failure of the Tenant. H&B had the option to take it on their selves or sell it! They chose the latter.

Cut the competition, why not, makes business sense. Was it a ruin? Has been lived in for years! Have  you seen the accommodation?

Italian Fella??? Swarthy guy, dark hair? English/Manx I think?

Sunday Lunch is always going to be a success if handled correctly, can't go far wrong with the low expectation of the customers. This is because the customers are not out for a drinking session, just for the grub.

Start from the top. Pavements piss poor, agreed.

5 minutes drive from Onchan. "Des driver". And a legal limit that doesn't mean it has to be exceeded, one can consume and socialise without exceeding.

Running down. How many pubs have the brewery put on the market in recent years that had been run into the ground by them and had nothing spent on their building fabric upkeep? Answer: Loads. And in some cases registered buildings. Simply run into the ground. And now offered on the condition they can't be used as pubs.

£40k. Spent where please? Apart from their few flagships some of which are barely open during the week

Failure of the tenant. As a brewery operation they have responsibility for the oversight of said tenant. The buck stops with H&B.

The brewery are simply guilty of uncompetitive practice that would be unacceptable elsewhere and a lack of interest in the trade having found new toys to play with. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/6/2019 at 7:08 PM, John Wright said:

It’s enforceable. Between H&B as seller and the first purchaser it’s a contract term. No way out. The court can’t set it aside between seller and buyer.

As for second, and subsequent purchasers, it’s enforceable. Yes, application could be made to the court, but if it’s recent, and H&B opposed and were still running a pub business it’s unlikely to be removed.

So the law covering this type of covenant is therefore indefensible, outdated, not fit for purpose and needs changing. On what moral grounds should a vendor be entitled to bind a future owner to a restricted course of action? Absolute nonsense! Have any of these ever been challenged?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, woolley said:

So the law covering this type of covenant is therefore indefensible, outdated, not fit for purpose and needs changing. On what moral grounds should a vendor be entitled to bind a future owner to a restricted course of action? Absolute nonsense! Have any of these ever been challenged?

It would be interesting to see if any restrictive covenants have been overturned. Off to google I go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, woolley said:

So the law covering this type of covenant is therefore indefensible, outdated, not fit for purpose and needs changing. On what moral grounds should a vendor be entitled to bind a future owner to a restricted course of action? Absolute nonsense! Have any of these ever been challenged?

I think to be fair to H&B here, they are probably making only a small loss on the place now it's closed, as opposed to when it was open

Covenants are not new as you know and are used all the time.

They don't need to sell it at all, just let it rot and sell the plot for development surely

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kopek said:

 

Cut the competition, why not, makes business sense. 

 

No.

It is cutting the market, which is something different than cutting the competition (but not to short-sighted people who have somehow landed a business to which they may not be best suited?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, dilligaf said:

I think to be fair to H&B here, they are probably making only a small loss on the place now it's closed, as opposed to when it was open

Covenants are not new as you know and are used all the time.

They don't need to sell it at all, just let it rot and sell the plot for development surely

They obviously have no intention of running it as a pub so what are they scared of?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, MrPB said:

You have to admire the bloke standing against him in Lonan.

Read his pledges to the end. It’s not the most subtle campaign in the world. 

B70D0360-1D1C-4552-AFDB-554E98BD2CE8.jpeg

As an aside I see the results are now in.

Mr Cronin got 57 votes.

The winning candidate in Lonan got 59 votes. 

The main loser seems to be democracy where less than 60 votes can get anyone in as a village commissioner. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An MHK was recently elected to House of Keys with less than 100 more votes than that.

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...