Professor Morten Hviid is. He wrote (in his reponse to the BIS consultation on proposed intervention between tenants and pub companies:
"If the market really is competitive as claimed, then increasing the fixed costs of the industry will lead to exit until the price has increased to cover these additional costs. "
But that's not right is it? That would only be the case (at the retailing end) if variable costs remained the same. But the whole point is to give the option of buying beer out of tie (at lower cost), increasing the gross profit available to those tenants who chose that option. And doesn't this then increase the incentive for the tenant to sell beer (they would get to keep more of the profit), while offering pubcos some insulation from the actual wet beer market (they'd have a portfolio of market rents to wave at their shareholders / lenders)?
Wouldn't a FOT option allow tenants to obtain a higher share of the profit while accepting a higher risk? Or, alternatively, allow them to choose the tie for lower risk & lower profit. And contrariwise for the pubco? There being only so much risk (and profit) to go around.
Not Cutting the Mustard - Fellow blogger *The Pub Curmudgeon* wrote a post a week or so ago, regarding what to do when food in a pub or restaurant isn’t quite up to scratch. The g...
11 hours ago