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

Pubs closing

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, dilligaf said:

 

Yes I have worked under the H&B umbrella some years ago. I owe them nothing and vice versa.

I just don't like seeing them slagged off for trying to make a profit.

They are (I think) the islands biggest private employer and as such, in my view deserve a bit of respect. 

I don’t recall anybody on here slagging them off for making a profit. They are receiving a slating for preventing anybody else from making a go of it. Big difference

  • Like 5

Share this post


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

But H&B are not a public service. They are a private business trying to make money. I would bet that they have even kept loss making pubs open as long as possible to help the locals. NB , which pubs have H&B sold that have been a great success for their rivals. I am thinking maybe The Bay in PE. I can't think of any others TBH.

 Edit to add Tatlock's pub.

The Commercial/Ellan Vannin and Trafalgar on Ramsey Quay alone. Bar Logo in Parliament St.

All open and doing business whilst the H&B Stanley and Royal are empty or even shut. Ditto the Swan on Parliament Sq, built mid nineties as a successful private enterprise and bought by the brewery @ 10 yrs ago when the owner retired. Now an expensive, soulless, empty box devoid of atmosphere or customers bar the odd pensioners meal and Friday teatimes.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Non-Believer said:

The Commercial/Ellan Vannin and Trafalgar on Ramsey Quay alone. Bar Logo in Parliament St.

All open and doing business whilst the H&B Stanley and Royal are empty or even shut. Ditto the Swan on Parliament Sq, built mid nineties as a successful private enterprise and bought by the brewery @ 10 yrs ago when the owner retired. Now an expensive, soulless, empty box devoid of atmosphere or customers bar the odd pensioners meal and Friday teatimes.

I will concede to your local knowledge there, as I have only ever been to Ramsey for a pint about twice. ( and I am now over 60 )

 Edit to add that I do like Ramsey and go down there about every two weeks to do a bit of mooching and shopping.

 

Edited by dilligaf

Share this post


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

Simple condition of sale. Nothing more. Why all the aggro. The place has died. Let it rest in peace.

Simple condition of sale with far reaching consequences for the amenity of the building and no justification whatsoever, except the narrow commercial self-interest of the current owner at the expense of any prospective owner any time in the future. Not good enough.

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

Simple condition of sale. Nothing more. Why all the aggro. The place has died. Let it rest in peace.

It has only died because of the terrible managers H & B has put in there. The last one taking the biscuit really in terms of being dreadful culminating in a conviction for DD. All people are saying is that it could thrive under different ownership. Or as a cafe or restaurant. But it can’t because of the way H & B have tied the freehold up in knots. Are you trying to argue the opposite hoping people will eventually get fed up of hitting the same brick wall over many many pages? 

Share this post


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

Simple condition of sale with far reaching consequences for the amenity of the building and no justification whatsoever, except the narrow commercial self-interest of the current owner at the expense of any prospective owner any time in the future. Not good enough.

With all due respect "woolley" you once gave me a hard time for buying from and promoting Amazon. You said it was unfair competition.

What is different here. Everyone wants to protect their business, be it a shop in Douglas or a massive company like H&B.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, MrPB said:

It has only died because of the terrible managers H & B has put in there. The last one taking the biscuit really in terms of being dreadful culminating in a conviction for DD. All people are saying is that it could thrive under different ownership. Or as a cafe or restaurant. But it can’t because of the way H & B have tied the freehold up in knots. Are you trying to argue the opposite hoping people will eventually get fed up of hitting the same brick wall over many many pages? 

Sorry, but no I am not.

I am saying a pub, restaurant, café there will fail for the same reasons that the pub did. I very much doubt it could ever make money, but just in case, the brewery have put the covenant on it. Is that not just business sense ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, MrPB said:

It has only died because of the terrible managers H & B has put in there. The last one taking the biscuit really in terms of being dreadful culminating in a conviction for DD. All people are saying is that it could thrive under different ownership. Or as a cafe or restaurant. But it can’t because of the way H & B have tied the freehold up in knots. Are you trying to argue the opposite hoping people will eventually get fed up of hitting the same brick wall over many many pages? 

I think it was a tenant. I could be wrong though.

I thought I was once, but  I was mistaken 

Share this post


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

Sorry, but no I am not.

I am saying a pub, restaurant, café there will fail for the same reasons that the pub did. I very much doubt it could ever make money, but just in case, the brewery have put the covenant on it. Is that not just business sense ?

It's not their decision to make for a prospective future owner.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

I am saying a pub, restaurant, café there will fail for the same reasons that the pub did. I very much doubt it could ever make money, but just in case, the brewery have put the covenant on it. Is that not just business sense ?

But it won’t. A restaurant might actually work really well. It works for the Hawthorn and that’s even further out of town. I don’t understand how you can proclaim the above so authoritatively when you have no firm basis for making that assumption. A well run restaurant might be exactly what the area needs but can never happen because of the restrictions put on the sale. I think you’re just making things up to keep arguing with people who have suggested that you might be wrong. A lot of the failure of the Liverpool Arms has been down to the Brewery and it’s onsite management. A new owner or a new concept could prove to be successful easily but this won’t be possible. 

Edited by MrPB
Spelling
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

But it won’t. A restaurant might actually work really well. It works for the Hawthorn and that’s even further out of town. I don’t understand how you can proclaim the above so authoritatively when you have no firm basis for making that assumption. A well run restaurant might be exactly what the area needs but can never happen because of the restrictions put on the sale. I think you’re just making things up to keep arguing with people who have suggested that you might be wrong. A lot of the failure of the Liverpool Arms has been down to the Brewery and it’s onsite management. A new owner or a new concept could prove to be successful easily but this won’t be possible. 

As far as I know the brewery didn't manage the Liverpool Arms. It was a Tenancy which means that the Brewery owned the Building and that the Tenant owned the business . The tenant would pay an agreed annual rent and have a supply agreement for products  . They would then have a business and accommodation.You seem very keen to blame the brewery for a business venture they did not control. I am sure if the brewery could have found a new ,financially sound businessperson to take this P.H. on and build the business they would have as it would give them a guaranteed rent and an outlet for their products .

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@emesde you are missing the point, which is why has the brewery put a covenant on the building that it can't be opened as a pub.

Edited by gettafa

Share this post


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

@emesde you are missing the point, which is why has the brewery put a covenant on the building that it can't be opened as a pub.

It hasn’t, yet.

The brewery is protecting its business.

If someone else wants to run a pub nearby they can buy somewhere and apply for a licence.

The LA was no longer fit for purpose, kitchen inadequate, living accommodation inadequate.

If you were a butcher, had two shops, decided to consolidate in one, why shouldn’t you restrict the use of the other - to protect yourself. The Methodist church often ( invariably ) impose no alcohol covenants.

Its getting confusing in the UK, because there’s an interplay between restrictive covenants ( which the court can only discharge if they are “obsolete” ) and competition law. Competition law, which we don’t have here, is winning out.

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, John Wright said:

It hasn’t, yet.

The brewery is protecting its business.

If someone else wants to run a pub nearby they can buy somewhere and apply for a licence.

The LA was no longer fit for purpose, kitchen inadequate, living accommodation inadequate.

If you were a butcher, had two shops, decided to consolidate in one, why shouldn’t you restrict the use of the other - to protect yourself. The Methodist church often ( invariably ) impose no alcohol covenants.

Its getting confusing in the UK, because there’s an interplay between restrictive covenants ( which the court can only discharge if they are “obsolete” ) and competition law. Competition law, which we don’t have here, is winning out.

As a "for instance" then John, what would happen if somebody purchased the property, applied to have it demolished owing to the inadequacy of the kitchen/living accommodation then re built a building on the footprint. Would the covenant still be in place or did it die when the building was demolished?

Share this post


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

As a "for instance" then John, what would happen if somebody purchased the property, applied to have it demolished owing to the inadequacy of the kitchen/living accommodation then re built a building on the footprint. Would the covenant still be in place or did it die when the building was demolished?

Neil Down, the covenant attaches to the land, not the building.

i was addressing the reasons why the brewery closed it and want to sell.

you raise reasons why the brewery would want to impose a covenant.

  • Haha 2

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...