Marton Arms - closed?
- Thread starter dunc
- Start date
Norris
New member
Hi Dunc, I'm sure you will have worked it out by now also, but here's a link anyway (assuming this is the right place)
http://www.claphambunk.com/
New one on me too, but looks good
Graham
http://www.claphambunk.com/
New one on me too, but looks good
Graham
On May 12, 2009, The Guardian newspaper reported how "Enterprise Inns counts cost of bad pub landlords": the recession had forced the pubco to take action against more than 100 "poor quality and underperforming licensees" since last autumn. It is spending ?1.4m a month on financial assistance to help those in distress, on top of the ?700,000 a month cost of freezing the price of five lager and ale brands. Chief Executive Ted Tuppen told The Guardian: "If people are genuinely struggling and will work with us, we are providing an awful lot of help". The cost of these programmes was however contributing to a slump in profits.
However, on May 13, 2009, a different perspective on the problems of pubcos emerged with the publication of a House of Commons report regarding a monopolies inquiry into pub groups. The report "raises a series of questions about the pub company (pubco) tied pub business model and calls on the Government to act urgently, in particular, to refer the matter to the Competition Commission. It challenges the pubcos which operate a tie to prove its benefits by giving lessees the choice between a tied or free of tie lease." The report also raises issues regarding the actual conduct of pubcos in dealing with struggling tenants.
Committee chairman Peter Luff, MP says: "The report explicitly acknowledges that 'not all the problems of the pub industry come from the tied pub model. It is clear there are many pressures on any retail business ... Nonetheless, our inquiry found alarming evidence indicating there may be serious problems caused by the dominance of the large pub companies."
According to an article in Private Eye, the select committee asked 1,000 publicans for their opinions regarding their experiences working with Britain's largest pubcos, which includes Enterprise Inns. The Eye states that the committee's findings had "at last shed light on an industry in freefall, with 40 pubs closing [in the UK] every week. Pubcos are essentially greedy property companies with a cuddly name ? and they own nearly half the country?s pub freeholds."
The Committee commissioned its own independent survey as part of the inquiry, to determine whether the negative evidence it initially received from lessees was typical of feelings in the industry.
"The survey results, printed with the Committee?s evidence, underpinned the Committee?s findings. 64 per cent of lessees did not think their pubco added any value and while a fifth had had a dispute with their pubco, few (18 per cent) were satisfied with the outcome. The Committee was astonished to learn that 67 per cent of the lessees surveyed earned less than ?15,000 pa and over 50 per cent of the lessees who had turnover of more than ?500,000 pa earned less than ?15,000 ? a 3 per cent rate of return. The lessees may share the risks with their pubco but they do not appear to share the benefits. The report therefore concludes that problems which were identified by the Trade and Industry Committee four years ago remain. An imbalance of bargaining power between lessees and pubcos persists and the arrangements for assessing rents remain opaque. Rental assessment should be the basis for negotiation, but incumbent lessees often risk the loss of their home as well as their business if they cannot reach agreement, the report says."
The Eye says the committee found that pubco tenants are initially attracted to run pubs by low entry costs, but soon find that making a decent living is very difficult. Tenants' leases oblige them to buy alcoholic drinks from nominated suppliers at up to twice the open-market price. If a struggling tenant leaves, another tenant can be found to replace them. In the years of booming property prices this practice was successful, but is much less so now, as evidenced by the number of pub closures. The Guardian reported that MPs found an imbalance of power that can amount to "downright bullying" between the big pubcos, such as Enterprise Inns and Punch Taverns, and their tenants. In 2008, one tenant who felt forced to close the pub he ran with his wife said:
"We told Enterprise [Inns] we were struggling and needed some help; they didn?t come forward with any. If we were late paying bills we would get threatening phone calls. They could have put a hold on the rent or given us a discount until we managed to get business back up. If we didn?t pay bills on time they wouldn?t deliver the beer and when they did deliver it they would charge us for carriage. Instead of helping us they were making it worse."
The MPs are said to also want a ban on pubcos selling pub premises with covenants that prevent them being used as pubs in the future. Ted Tuppen explained the need for covenants to the committee by saying there are too many pubs in some areas and Enterprise used restrictive covenants "because, genuinely, we think these are pubs that have lived their life". However, he admitted that 70% of Enterprise sales have such covenants in place.
The select committee was not generally impressed by the pubcos' senior executives, rebuking them for having given "partial" and even "false" evidence to the committee.
The committee recommended that "the tying of beers, other drinks and ancillary products should be severely limited to ensure that competition in the retail market is restored."
The Eye notes that select committee chairman Peter Luff "may be looking to right the wrong created by the Thatcher government?s disastrous "Beer Orders" of 1989, in which he was involved."
However, on May 13, 2009, a different perspective on the problems of pubcos emerged with the publication of a House of Commons report regarding a monopolies inquiry into pub groups. The report "raises a series of questions about the pub company (pubco) tied pub business model and calls on the Government to act urgently, in particular, to refer the matter to the Competition Commission. It challenges the pubcos which operate a tie to prove its benefits by giving lessees the choice between a tied or free of tie lease." The report also raises issues regarding the actual conduct of pubcos in dealing with struggling tenants.
Committee chairman Peter Luff, MP says: "The report explicitly acknowledges that 'not all the problems of the pub industry come from the tied pub model. It is clear there are many pressures on any retail business ... Nonetheless, our inquiry found alarming evidence indicating there may be serious problems caused by the dominance of the large pub companies."
According to an article in Private Eye, the select committee asked 1,000 publicans for their opinions regarding their experiences working with Britain's largest pubcos, which includes Enterprise Inns. The Eye states that the committee's findings had "at last shed light on an industry in freefall, with 40 pubs closing [in the UK] every week. Pubcos are essentially greedy property companies with a cuddly name ? and they own nearly half the country?s pub freeholds."
The Committee commissioned its own independent survey as part of the inquiry, to determine whether the negative evidence it initially received from lessees was typical of feelings in the industry.
"The survey results, printed with the Committee?s evidence, underpinned the Committee?s findings. 64 per cent of lessees did not think their pubco added any value and while a fifth had had a dispute with their pubco, few (18 per cent) were satisfied with the outcome. The Committee was astonished to learn that 67 per cent of the lessees surveyed earned less than ?15,000 pa and over 50 per cent of the lessees who had turnover of more than ?500,000 pa earned less than ?15,000 ? a 3 per cent rate of return. The lessees may share the risks with their pubco but they do not appear to share the benefits. The report therefore concludes that problems which were identified by the Trade and Industry Committee four years ago remain. An imbalance of bargaining power between lessees and pubcos persists and the arrangements for assessing rents remain opaque. Rental assessment should be the basis for negotiation, but incumbent lessees often risk the loss of their home as well as their business if they cannot reach agreement, the report says."
The Eye says the committee found that pubco tenants are initially attracted to run pubs by low entry costs, but soon find that making a decent living is very difficult. Tenants' leases oblige them to buy alcoholic drinks from nominated suppliers at up to twice the open-market price. If a struggling tenant leaves, another tenant can be found to replace them. In the years of booming property prices this practice was successful, but is much less so now, as evidenced by the number of pub closures. The Guardian reported that MPs found an imbalance of power that can amount to "downright bullying" between the big pubcos, such as Enterprise Inns and Punch Taverns, and their tenants. In 2008, one tenant who felt forced to close the pub he ran with his wife said:
"We told Enterprise [Inns] we were struggling and needed some help; they didn?t come forward with any. If we were late paying bills we would get threatening phone calls. They could have put a hold on the rent or given us a discount until we managed to get business back up. If we didn?t pay bills on time they wouldn?t deliver the beer and when they did deliver it they would charge us for carriage. Instead of helping us they were making it worse."
The MPs are said to also want a ban on pubcos selling pub premises with covenants that prevent them being used as pubs in the future. Ted Tuppen explained the need for covenants to the committee by saying there are too many pubs in some areas and Enterprise used restrictive covenants "because, genuinely, we think these are pubs that have lived their life". However, he admitted that 70% of Enterprise sales have such covenants in place.
The select committee was not generally impressed by the pubcos' senior executives, rebuking them for having given "partial" and even "false" evidence to the committee.
The committee recommended that "the tying of beers, other drinks and ancillary products should be severely limited to ensure that competition in the retail market is restored."
The Eye notes that select committee chairman Peter Luff "may be looking to right the wrong created by the Thatcher government?s disastrous "Beer Orders" of 1989, in which he was involved."
traff
Member
paul said:
Just got back after a week in the dales. According to a local in the Craven Heifer it is closed due to an issue with the boiler.......?!?
I truly despair how great pubs once sold by independent owners to corporate entities fail to reap the rewards laid out for them.
One could rant for hours on this subject but won't.
The Marton Arms was open for Easter. I visited it on the Thursday evening with a gang of older chums who all remember how good it was in the past. We were not impressed by our visit. We were greeted by the sign indicating food served until 9:00pm but were told [at 8:30pm when we arrived] that they had had a big function on and that the kitchen staff had gone into meltdown. No scoff could be served to us. Looking at the empty car park and also at a few punters who were still eating their food in the bar we quickly decided they just couldn't be bothered and were fobbing us off. There was no function taking place. The place will not be trading for long if they carry on with that sort of poor attitude.
I emailed them on 11 Mar and got a reply 11 Apr:
Sent: 11 March 2012 21:28
To: info@martonarms.co.uk
Subject: Message from Website
Are you still trading? I went by recently and the pub appeared to be closed again?
Thanks
________________________________________
From: The Marton Arms [mailto:info@martonarms.co.uk]
Sent: 11 April 2012 12:13
Subject: RE: Message from Website
Dear Sir
I am writing in response to your email enquiry re The Marton Arms Hotel, Ingleton. The hotel has been closed for about a month, therefore if you have had no reply to your enquiries this is the reason.
My name is Lesley Thomson and I am the Hotel Manager who is Managing the hotel on behalf of North Country Inns. I am delighted to advise you that we are open for business as of last Friday, 6th April , please feel free to get back in touch and I will be happy to assist you with your enquiry.
In the meantime, if I can be of any further assistance please do not hesitate in contacting me.
Kind regards
Lesley Thomson
Manager
Sent: 11 March 2012 21:28
To: info@martonarms.co.uk
Subject: Message from Website
Are you still trading? I went by recently and the pub appeared to be closed again?
Thanks
________________________________________
From: The Marton Arms [mailto:info@martonarms.co.uk]
Sent: 11 April 2012 12:13
Subject: RE: Message from Website
Dear Sir
I am writing in response to your email enquiry re The Marton Arms Hotel, Ingleton. The hotel has been closed for about a month, therefore if you have had no reply to your enquiries this is the reason.
My name is Lesley Thomson and I am the Hotel Manager who is Managing the hotel on behalf of North Country Inns. I am delighted to advise you that we are open for business as of last Friday, 6th April , please feel free to get back in touch and I will be happy to assist you with your enquiry.
In the meantime, if I can be of any further assistance please do not hesitate in contacting me.
Kind regards
Lesley Thomson
Manager
TheBitterEnd
Well-known member
It was open Wednesday night, had a n outside saying "customers wanted, no experience necessary"
JJ
Member
dunc said:Surprising it was busy, the amount of pissing about that has taken place with it being open then closed and then ..etc.. Given time I'm sure it'll be a prime spot for a fewflatsswanky apartments like the Bridge.
or the Goat Gap, Flying Horseshoes, Cross Streets and Bowerley
Glenn
Member
Alex said:
No, we did that in 2010 - have you not done the Big Gully Route?;
http://www.cncc.org.uk/tg_news.html
We were decommissioninmg the PECO's and installing the new anchor; http://british-caving.org.uk/?page=165
