Monday, March 26, 2012

@john. Thanks for the link. Punch don't have a cat in hell's chance of getting 'their' food up to 40% without INVESTING £millions in improving their pub estate's cooking capabilities.

The pubco model denies that investment is the responsibility of the freeholder - everything in the model is devolved solely to the tenant. 'Improvements' to the premises by the freeholder are 'rentalised' - charged to the tenant through increased rent. It's not outlandish to assume the majority tenants cannot afford to make improvements - or they would have done already. So Punch will not have many takers for their 'investment offer' or 'partnership development' or whatever they call funding a refurbishment by getting the tenant to pay for it.

No comments:

Post a Comment