On 23 Jan 2012 at 8:39pm KENDO CASTER wrote:
Whats with all the pubs closing down, The Berwick, The Plough along the road from Berwick, The Lamb at Ripe, The Hungry Monk. Are these not brewery pubs, are there a lack of landlords.
On 23 Jan 2012 at 9:09pm Mr Beverage wrote:
The Hungry Monk a pub?
On 23 Jan 2012 at 9:17pm squuezy wrote:
Seems the Breweries prey on novices - they charge them a fortune and promise the earth. Down the line they lose money and leave. After a while the pub loses its reputation and closes...
On 23 Jan 2012 at 11:30pm Ed Can Do wrote:
The Berwick closed because the manager they had in there was helping himself to the stock so they got rid of him, are having a mini-refurb and are opening again soon. The Hundry Monk was a restaurant and is closing due to lack of trade, nothing to do with a brewery. I can't imagine the Lamb gets much passing trade and I'm not sure which Plough you mean.
Country pubs are suffering though and these days there's more money to be made selling the building for houses than in running a business there.
On 24 Jan 2012 at 5:46am pubber wrote:
Im pretty sure most rural pubs rely on the reputation for their food. Get that right and word of mouth will soon spread.
The Ram at Firle is heaving every lunch time with people paying good money for good (but expensive) food.
I thought the Lamb only reopened back in the summer ???
On 24 Jan 2012 at 10:29am Deelite wrote:
Shame about the Hungry Monk. It was great, the very best food combined with lovely old world charm and ambience and best of all, private dining rooms. A real treasure and sorely missed.
On 24 Jan 2012 at 5:58pm Annette Curtin-Twitcher wrote:
The Lamb at Ripe was rather a nice pub, imo, although I haven't been there for a long time.
I hate to see pubs closing down, but I suppose it's hard for country pubs them to get enough trade to keep going when almost everyone has to drive there. The only ones that seem to succeed are the ones that do a big food trade and end up more like restaurants.
On 24 Jan 2012 at 8:41pm jrsussex wrote:
There are a number of reasons why public houses struggle to survive in the 21st century, currently a very valid reason is that going to your local for a night out can be expensive. It is difficult for any licensee operating leasehold or tenanted premises to reduce their prices. High rents, high purchasing costs for products, high business rates, staff costs etc all combine to make life hard financially. Unquestionably the smoking ban was a massive blow, probably the biggest in recent years, to most licensed premises. They have not, nor will, recover the trade lost as a direct result of that.
On 24 Jan 2012 at 9:57pm expat two wrote:
Are there any stats on that jr? I'm not being contrary, I'd be interested to know. (I'm a smoker btw.)
I thought the point of the smoking ban was to allow people who don't like smoke to enjoy pubs. Maybe we could ban loud music in nightclubs, so those that don't like dancing can enjoy themselves too.
On 24 Jan 2012 at 10:52pm KENDO CASTER wrote:
Ed Can Do, thats a bit of a statement, are you sure Tony was kicked out, i cant see him doing that.
On 24 Jan 2012 at 10:56pm Ed Can Do wrote:
That info came from the owners so yeah, he was a nice guy but a terrible pub manager by all accounts. I suspect that there were other, more general management issues but more than one worryingly poor stocktakes were the main reason for the closure of the pub.
On 25 Jan 2012 at 4:50pm jrsussex wrote:
Expat Two - The campaign to stop smoking became strong in the early 90's, this led to a ban but the Labour party when campaigning for the 1997 election, as part of their manifesto, said it would apply to the workplace only, specifically would not be applied to restaurants, pubs, hotels etc. What they then did when Parliament voted on it was included those outlets, had that had been in their manifesto I believe it would have had a major effect on the level of votes they received. Not perhaps enough to have altered the outcomet but nevertheless enough to have stopped them bringing in the ban. The anti-smoking brigade used as a major part of their campaign the argument that non-smokers would increase their use of pubs, which of course they never did. The licensed trade didn't believe that but the politicians did.
There are no official stats but the majority of landlords throughout the UK will tell you they lost trade when the ban came in and have not recovered that trade. There are exceptions, some premises became more catering establishments, and of course since then the cost of a drink has soared so it is difficult now to pin lost trade down to the ban. I am a non-smoker but believe that the ban was not needed, licensees should make their own rules for their premises and let the public decide which outlet they wish to use.
On 25 Jan 2012 at 4:54pm jrsussex wrote:
Ed Can Do - If bad stocktakes were the reason, and I repeat IF, then that has always been a reason for disposing of a manager. A brewer, pubco or individual licensee had little option if their stock appears to be disappearing.
On 26 Jan 2012 at 9:14am Emm wrote:
The Plough at Upper Dicker?
On 26 Jan 2012 at 8:52pm Independent Thinker wrote:
JRS, I remember this debate from ages back. The fact is nobody will ever be able to prove the precise impact of the ban on pubs simply because the credit crunch, cheap supermarket booze, higher rents, higher staff costs, alcohol awareness campaigns and changing social attitudes to going to the pub have all hit at roughly the same time. When I was a young 'un we'd all shoot straight to the pub at 6pm on a Friday night. Now young people gather at their friends homes and preload on cheap supermarket booze before heading out for last orders and a night club. I love pubs and hate to see them in trouble, but instead of focussing energy on trying to reverse the ban, it should be spent lobbying against the other culprits that are collectively doing far more damage. Changes to business rates, to reflect the importance pubs have to a community (particularly village pubs) would be a great start. Along with cracking down on supermarkets using booze as loss leaders. Two measures that would make a big difference.
On 26 Jan 2012 at 9:28pm KENDO CASTER wrote:
Emm, Yes the plough, if you carry on down the road from Berwick station, you come to the plough on your left, just before you get to St Bedes school.
On 26 Jan 2012 at 10:23pm the old mayor wrote:
I think by now it must be obvious to even the village idiots that once the smoking ban became so 'successful' it was and is only a matter of time before alcohol becomes the latest victim in the pursuit of the health of the nation !!
What with a pub on every corner they needed to be culled.
All we hear about is just how bad alcohol is for everyone. Its the nanny state taking over,. Never mind that illegal drugs are readily available EVERYWHERE (They will be legalised in the future, just as when spirits were, and then taxed ! It's called progress !!
On 27 Jan 2012 at 12:05am jrsussex wrote:
IT - I made no mention of campaigning for the lifting of the ban, I simply gave my opinion on what I felt should have happened. Interestingly quite a few pubs, prior to the introduction of the actual ban, declared themselves to be non-smoking premises. I cannot remember one that did not reverse that decision within a year, that has to tell us something about the effect of the smoking ban on the level of trade for pubs. Also why do many non-smokers go outside with the smokers?
I am not naive so cannot envisage the ban being reversed but, as a non-smoker myself, I think it was wrong to introduce it. That is my opinion.