Best restaurant in Ramsey

[jackwhite]

1 hour ago, genericUserName said:

Is this the backwards thread?

Backwards thread isn't this.

[The Voice of Reason]

It’s been brought to my attention that as of next month the Harbour View Restaurant is becoming a “ bring your own” drink place ( with a £1 corkage fee).

Welcome though that is (to be able to bring a half decent bottle of wine for not much more than you pay there for a glass) it has set me wondering.

Normally a BYO restaurant might  convert into a licensed one over time. I’ve not heard of the reverse happening before.

Anyway in my opinion it is still the best restaurant in Ramsey, and possibly the best on the Island. (I haven’t visited every restaurant on the Island so I couldn’t make  that claim with certainty)

[John Wright]

2 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said:

It’s been brought to my attention that as of next month the Harbour View Restaurant is becoming a “ bring your own” drink place ( with a £1 corkage fee).

Welcome though that is (to be able to bring a half decent bottle of wine for not much more than you pay there for a glass) it has set me wondering.

Normally a BYO restaurant might  convert into a licensed one over time. I’ve not heard of the reverse happening before.

Anyway in my opinion it is still the best restaurant in Ramsey, and possibly the best on the Island. (I haven’t visited every restaurant on the Island so I couldn’t make  that claim with certainty)

There have been huge changes in how alcohol licenses are administered and charged for. We are in the middle of the transition. Fees up. I know who owns HV ( they post on here ), but I’ve no knowledge of the business, it’s finances, etc.

But, my expectation would be, in the current economic climate, that there’d be a lot to gain by not having to pay the licence fee, nor to have to carry the wine stock. A small list, with one champagne, a Cava, four reds, four whites, 2 rose,  plus a stock of spirits, ties up a couple of £000. Plus insurance will be more expensive to cover alcohol stock.

Then you free up fridge/cooler space for the fizz/white/rose. And for customers makes the evening cheaper if they bring their own. They may go more frequently or spend more on food.

Suspect they’ll not be the last to surrender the licence.

[The Voice of Reason]

7 hours ago, John Wright said:

There have been huge changes in how alcohol licenses are administered and charged for. We are in the middle of the transition. Fees up. I know who owns HV ( they post on here ), but I’ve no knowledge of the business, it’s finances, etc.

But, my expectation would be, in the current economic climate, that there’d be a lot to gain by not having to pay the licence fee, nor to have to carry the wine stock. A small list, with one champagne, a Cava, four reds, four whites, 2 rose,  plus a stock of spirits, ties up a couple of £000. Plus insurance will be more expensive to cover alcohol stock.

Then you free up fridge/cooler space for the fizz/white/rose. And for customers makes the evening cheaper if they bring their own. They may go more frequently or spend more on food.

Suspect they’ll not be the last to surrender the licence.

Thanks for those thoughts John. 

I’ve always been under the impression that the mark up on drinks is so much more than food in the restaurant trade but what you’ve said does make a degree of sense.

If we go out for a meal, either as a couple or in a group then I would estimate that 40% of the bill goes on drinks. So yes if the drinks bill reduces we may spend more on the food.

Conversely it would be good if you could go to certain other lesser restaurants and take your own food and pay a “foodage” fee, whilst buying your drinks from them! Just an idea.

[Passing Time]

2 hours ago, The Voice of Reason said:

Thanks for those thoughts John. 

I’ve always been under the impression that the mark up on drinks is so much more than food in the restaurant trade but what you’ve said does make a degree of sense.

If we go out for a meal, either as a couple or in a group then I would estimate that 40% of the bill goes on drinks. So yes if the drinks bill reduces we may spend more on the food.

Conversely it would be good if you could go to certain other lesser restaurants and take your own food and pay a “foodage” fee, whilst buying your drinks from them! Just an idea.

Think you’ll find that’s called a picnic

[The Voice of Reason]

8 hours ago, Passing Time said:

Think you’ll find that’s called a picnic

I’m not sure that’s what the restaurant owner would call it🙂

[jackwhite]

I can understand why people can't be bothered with the hassle of licensing. 

The new process is supposed to have simplified things but little has changed IMO. 

There are very strict fire procedures and such that an unlicensed restaurant wouldn't have to comply with. 

Was hearing of a situation recently where.a landlord was insisting a tenant would have to pay to install fire proof glass to comply with licensing law on the grounds they wouldn't have to if they weren't licensed. Makes me question the integrity of the landlord personally but it's just an example of why this sort of thing might be happening.

[John Wright]

Yes, the security requirements by the police licensing unit, doors, cctv, and extra strong glass, etc are a huge one off cost. Plus the fire requirements that are tougher than if you don’t sell alcohol, even although customer numbers and architecture are identical whether licensed or not.  Plus periodic inspections, plans, not being able to change layout without court approval. Huge disincentive 

[The Voice of Reason]

1 hour ago, John Wright said:

Yes, the security requirements by the police licensing unit, doors, cctv, and extra strong glass, etc are a huge one off cost. Plus the fire requirements that are tougher than if you don’t sell alcohol, even although customer numbers and architecture are identical whether licensed or not.  Plus periodic inspections, plans, not being able to change layout without court approval. Huge disincentive 

Wow.

Never realised that. That must account for not being able to put your coat in the bag of the chair while dining in one establishment. 
Was told it was for fire safety reasons. I thought it was them just being silly ( Yes it was the HV)

[The Old Git]

21 hours ago, The Voice of Reason said:

 

If we go out for a meal, either as a couple or in a group then I would estimate that 40% of the bill goes on drinks. So yes if the drinks bill reduces we may spend more on the food

Amateurs

[The Voice of Reason]

1 hour ago, The Old Git said:

Amateurs

Well it’s a bit like when  the doctor asks you about your drinking habits you never tell the truth. 
 

OK 60% then 🙂

[The Old Git]

15 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said:

Well it’s a bit like when  the doctor asks you about your drinking habits you never tell the truth. 
 

OK 60% then 🙂

Just looking at the bill for lunch for a mate and I just before Christmas and it was 83%. We finished two hours after the place closed. 

[The Phantom]

18 hours ago, John Wright said:

Yes, the security requirements by the police licensing unit, doors, cctv, and extra strong glass, etc are a huge one off cost. Plus the fire requirements that are tougher than if you don’t sell alcohol, even although customer numbers and architecture are identical whether licensed or not.  Plus periodic inspections, plans, not being able to change layout without court approval. Huge disincentive 

This just an IOM thing or UK also?

Have the CS once again enforced and regulated the shit out of something so much that no one is going to want to bother going through all the beaurocracy? 

[The Voice of Reason]

14 minutes ago, The Phantom said:

This just an IOM thing or UK also?

Have the CS once again enforced and regulated the shit out of something so much that no one is going to want to bother going through all the beaurocracy? 

It also doesn’t appear to make sense. If these extra measures are in force because people may have enjoyed alcohol in that environment.

If you revert to BYO surely customers will still drink as much ( if not more, because it’s cheaper)

Maybe it’s not that though

[John Wright]

1 hour ago, The Phantom said:

This just an IOM thing or UK also?

Have the CS once again enforced and regulated the shit out of something so much that no one is going to want to bother going through all the beaurocracy? 

 

1 hour ago, The Voice of Reason said:

It also doesn’t appear to make sense. If these extra measures are in force because people may have enjoyed alcohol in that environment.

If you revert to BYO surely customers will still drink as much ( if not more, because it’s cheaper)

Maybe it’s not that though

Licensing is different in all 4 jurisdictions in the UK, but the security stuff, cctv, etc are similar.  It’s quite onerous. 

It’s not unreasonable. It’s partly to do with how people behave on licensed premises having consumed alcohol purchased there, but it’s also because licensed premises are frequently the targets of break ins.

Sale of alcohol is highly regulated.