RE: Clear pubco estate acquires freeholds

Well, Duncan and his associates are well positioned to take advantage of what's been going on with the market aren't they? WHY, exactly, have they radically reorganised their set up? BE LOGICAL ABOUT THIS. Exactly because these pubs WERE NOT MAKING MONEY. It's obvious - why else would they make these changes to their set up?

Can you imagine a deal whereby you take on 25 tied leased sites and are able to 'hand back' any of them you don;t like the feel of? i.e. if they aren't making anything because the tie and the rent together mean they are losing money - why, you just apply your cosy 'cooling off' period and say 'take back the loss makers, we'll keep the rest. And even then we don't intend to keep those for very long because, actually they are tied and the rents are still too high and we will be going SOLELY for freeholds from now on.

None of this marries well with what Giles and Ted were saying and continue to put about which is that , when you add up the costs of a tied pub against those of a free of tie you will find the outcome remarkably similar.

The major flaw in this argument is that the tied pubs tend to lose money while the free of tie make a profit.

The Clear Pub Company Experience - a VERY well funded set up run be two ex high up Punch employees - PROVES that tied pubs DO NOT WORK - even when you have a group of them. FULL STOP.

edited by: Mark Dodds at: 12/12/2008 21:42:33

This post replies to this thread