These of course all play a part in the catastrophic collapse of the pub sector we are witnessing but if more information had come from the other side of the bar – the side where pints are poured and the punters get served from – the article might have been less apparently balanced and pointed the finger where it really should: squarely at the industry's boardrooms, whose appalling mismanagement of the pub industry has brought Britain's most iconic, culturally significant, economically flexible and socially essential network of small businesses to its knees. The finger's aimed at the Great British Pubco's and they've nowhere to hide.
It sounds blunt but it's true: the pub sector has been in the hands of spivs and bandits who, in just twenty five years since the beer orders of 1989, have quietly, cynically and systemically manipulated the construct of the tied lease, a completely anachronistic form of free market protectionism, to blatantly asset strip the nation's pub stock from right under the British public's nose and get away with it.
The figures for pub closures quoted clearly came from the pubco side of the bar because they are wrong, as the first commenter points out. Far more tied pubs close than free of tie – the figures given out to public consumption are manipulated by the industry to show the contrary and 'proves' the beer tie 'protects' pubs and their publicans from the ravages of the free market – this is palpable nonsense when you know just how much tied pubs are really being fleeced for.
It's disgraceful. It's a cultural crime.