Jump to content

Restricting competition


Recommended Posts

26 minutes ago, John Wright said:

The purchaser who agreed to enter into the covenant on buying does so with their eyes open, of their own free will. They don’t have to buy that property. Don’t understand why you think this is a matter for anti trust.

The purchaser is irrelevant. It is the seller who is preventing open competition by reducing the pool of buyers to those who would not use it in a way that would compete with their near monopoly hegemony.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 50
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

If they are so confident it can't be run as a pub then they shouldn't have to put a covenant on it ? 100+years ago it was common place to put such a covenant on any residential building, so that

The brewery outright refuse to see someone else do it well.

Time that Tynwald legislated against H&B acting against the public interest in such a manner. Is there a single MHK with the balls to sponsor such legislation though?

Posted Images

9 minutes ago, finlo said:

If you were to buy it then just apply for a license is there anything H&B could actually do to stop you? Or do they still have board members in positions of influence elsewhere?

You could apply for and be granted a licence, it’s nothing to do with the licensing court.

But H&B could apply to the High Court for, and would be granted, an injunction, plus damages. A covenant is a type of contract. You’d be in breach 

Link to post
Share on other sites

..... and yet they have a prospective purchaser!

Any attempt to get around the covenant by buying and then applying for pub permission wiould be rejected as it is too soon to ask for a variance.

Ten years from now, an ask could be considered but by then it will be two houses and three apartments?

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

You could apply for and be granted a licence, it’s nothing to do with the licensing court.

But H&B could apply to the High Court for, and would be granted, an injunction, plus damages. A covenant is a type of contract. You’d be in breach 

Kind of renders it pretty much worthless then!

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

The purchaser is irrelevant. It is the seller who is preventing open competition by reducing the pool of buyers to those who would not use it in a way that would compete with their near monopoly hegemony.

Of all the licenced premises on Island what percentage do you think are owned by H&B?

its less than 25%. Is that a monopoly? Or a hegemony?

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

Kind of renders it pretty much worthless then!

300,000 quid worthless!

 

Are we really that desperate  for a Pub half way to Laxey? You could always take a flask!

Edited by Kopek
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, John Wright said:

Of all the licenced premises on Island what percentage do you think are owned by H&B?

its less than 25%. Is that a monopoly? Or a hegemony?

I'm not singling out one company. Anti-trust laws would go beyond that.

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

Would you want to live there? Constant traffic noise, bathed in main beam etc and there's been more than one car that's ended up in the bar!

No I wouldn't want to live there, spend some 5oo,ooo quids on the conversion and not have the land in front, Garff Comms I think, to buffer you from the main road traffic, which makes a site development more likely?

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

Of all the licenced premises on Island what percentage do you think are owned by H&B?

its less than 25%. Is that a monopoly? Or a hegemony?

Less than 25%. That can’t be correct.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Howard said:

I'm not singling out one company. Anti-trust laws would go beyond that.

Anti trust laws would be fantastic in a strong Govt. We do not have strong Govt and would likely see such laws applied in a selective manner leaving us, the public, feeling that a trick has been missed.

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

Anti trust laws would be fantastic in a strong Govt. We do not have strong Govt and would likely see such laws applied in a selective manner leaving us, the public, feeling that a trick has been missed.

We do have a strong government. It's just that it's completely controlled by various interests.

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

300,000 quid worthless!

 

Are we really that desperate  for a Pub half way to Laxey? You could always take a flask!

More to do with H&B denying anybody the opportunity to show them how to run a pub properly.

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

No I wouldn't want to live there, spend some 5oo,ooo quids on the conversion and not have the land in front, Garff Comms I think, to buffer you from the main road traffic, which makes a site development more likely?

Yep, you'd have to start again flatten it and rebuild back from the road but I don't think the expense would warrant it.

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...