Lewes Forum thread

Go on, tell 'em what you think


Lewes Forum New message

The real festival winner

1
21
On 23 Jul 2013 at 7:58pm Frustrated tenant wrote:
Just heard that the beer tent grossed £660k over the weekend (equates to an average of four pints at £4 per person per day which does not seem unreasonable).
Bearing in mind Harveys have taken all the profits with the promise to a contribution to the bonfire societies for providing volunteer free bar staff, minimal distribution costs and cutting out the middle man (ie the publican), it is not unreasonable to estimate that Harveys have made an extra £400k this weekend (based upon 40% gross profit over the bar and their usual production 38% gross profit) if these takings figures are correct. Even if they are over-stated by double then £200k is nothing to be sniffed at.
I just hope the bonfire societies bear this in mind when they accept their contribution from Harveys, I also hope that there is a bonanza of sponsorship for all the Lewes sports clubs and local community societies on the back of this.
8
 
On 23 Jul 2013 at 8:12pm landporter wrote:
I heard they took £180k
2
2
On 23 Jul 2013 at 9:30pm middleclassandabitsmug wrote:
Just as long as they pay their tax...
22
 
On 23 Jul 2013 at 9:32pm Independent Thinker wrote:
They clearly did a roaring trade, but no chance in the world the £660k figure you came up with is correct. An average of 4 pints per person per day is an insane amount given the thousands of non-drinkers (including under 18s who may have smuggled booze in, but weren't getting served) and the thousands more who were there to enjoy the music and not just to get hammered. Why not wait for the real numbers, which the societies will know as they were the ones collecting the money? Harveys has an excellent reputation for supporting the town, so you can be confident that whatever was agreed to, is what will happen.
18
 
On 23 Jul 2013 at 9:36pm Pint drinker wrote:
I don't know any exact figures, but £660k is way off. I'm also lead to believe that Harvey's sold the beer at trade price! ( they did not take advantage of the situation which they could quite easily have done) and forces other then the societies and Harvey's set the prices. Sure there will be some big winner's, but as a whole, the town was alive with trade (which can only be a good thing), music and a great atmosphere. Maybe not everyone's cup of tea, but you have to admit, it was a very Lewes event. And one last thing... I like the beer, I'm not an employee so I feel I can say this without bias - Harvey's puts so much back in to the town, from gifts to events, employment and supporting many many organizations.... having a moan and stating facts that you just worked out on a calculator is low, just sour.
7
 
On 23 Jul 2013 at 9:45pm Sparky wrote:
Frustrated tenant, I'm afraid everything you say is utter rubbish. Whoever told you is winding you up or you are trying to wind everyone else up.
20
 
On 23 Jul 2013 at 9:56pm Pint Of Best wrote:
Frustrated Tenant, it wasn't the promise of a contribution to the Bonfire Societies, it was the promise of the PROFITS from the bar. Harveys sold the beer at trade price, and the Societies then sold the beer to the punters. Which to be honest, is a pretty bloody good deal and a fantastic gesture from Harveys, who, apart from some well deserved good PR, won't have made a great deal from the event. And as for 660K, absolute nonsense, try not to believe everything you hear in the pub....
4
 
On 23 Jul 2013 at 11:29pm Local wrote:
What a load of cobblers, chum. Do you have a handle on the side of your head, because someone is taking you for a mug
 
15
On 24 Jul 2013 at 8:34am Frustrated Tenant wrote:
If you read my post properly you will see I have never agreed with any of the takings figures. The bonfire societies all provided volunteers to the same bar (except for Southover) and therefore it was not possible for one society to 'buy the beer at trade price'. I think Harveys will have done very well from the weekend either way.
When the real figures come out, I hope that the contribution to the societies tallies with what would be expected if the societies ran the bars as they normally do, if that is the case then great and everyone has won.
The aim of the post was to highlight an expectation that the societies should benefit to the tune of at least 30% of the takings . For the record I heard the figure from one of the bar staff working in the beer tent at the event.
Sorry to disturb you and please feel free to go back to over-reacting to articles in your daily mail.
10
 
On 24 Jul 2013 at 12:03pm Independent Thinker wrote:
Frustrated Tenant, I read your post several times before replying to see if there was anything in it that was more than your own personal back of a fag packet calculations based on nothing but rumours and guesswork. There wasn't. And you're at it again with more unsubstantiated claims. You clearly don't know what the arrangements were for supply of the beer, how much money was taken, and how much the various societies and other charities will benefit from what was clearly a very successful event. So why on earth are you posting? And how can you possibly be surprised that people challenged the idiotic claims you made, given the problems that could be caused if enough people believed them, then turned on Harveys or the Societies when the expected windfall was nowhere near your numbers? Here's a suggestion. Wait for the facts, then comment.
7
1
On 24 Jul 2013 at 12:24pm MBS wrote:
Frustrated Tenant - Way off the mark with just about every comment you've made there. As Independent Thinker states, I'd wait till you actully have some facts before you comment again.
9
 
On 24 Jul 2013 at 1:35pm Slarty wrote:
The bonfire societies all provided volunteers to the same bar (except for Southover)
- Wrong, Southover were in the Harveys bar too (as well as thier own batr in the Priory ruins).
and therefore it was not possible for one society to 'buy the beer at trade price'
- All societies worked as one, so all societies bought beer at trade price (it's called working together).
I think Harveys will have done very well from the weekend either way
- they sold beer at trade price, can't really hurt them. They also provided, I understand free of charge; staff to help, the tent and HOP bar, bar towels and mats etc. They are a business to make money, but the societies were by no way hard done by and I think Harveys went above and beyond what they had to do.
When the real figures come out, I hope that the contribution to the societies tallies with what would be expected if the societies ran the bars as they normally do, if that is the case then great and everyone has won.
- As mentioned (and please note this) The societies ran the bar so there will be no contribution from Harveys. Societies colelcted money, banked money and distributed money amongst themselves after paying for the drinks etc. The real figure will be with treasurers or in the accounts and I don't think it will be published (why would it? no other business would publish a similar figure)
The aim of the post was to highlight an expectation that the societies should benefit to the tune of at least 30% of the takings .
- The scieties are sharing 100% of the profits. Any percentage of takings is irrelevant. The societies know what they are getting as (and I'll say it one more time), they ran the bar, collected the money, banked the money, paid the bills and distributed the profit.
For the record I heard the figure from one of the bar staff working in the beer tent at the event.
- because bar staff can accurately work our how much has been taken over 2 days of trading when they are 1/50 of the team (or 1/150 if you count all 3 shifts of 50 people)! I think not.
3
4
On 24 Jul 2013 at 3:31pm Bar wrote:
The bar took £187k as I heard from someone in the know
5
 
On 24 Jul 2013 at 10:38pm RLS wrote:
This is a private matter between the bonfire societies and Harveys and other businesses with whom they dealt with for this event and is therefore unlikely to be published. No one here has the correct figure but Frustrated tenant you are so far out it isn't true !
6
 
On 25 Jul 2013 at 12:17am IMEYOU wrote:
"Frustrated tenant" Do Not Speak Above Your Station, Your Original Post Is Absolute Drivel ! I Should Know As I Was There.
5
 
On 25 Jul 2013 at 8:29am No Sympathy wrote:
Running a pub as a tenant landlord is a mugs game. Effectively you're running your business with all the associated costs and risks for the benefit of the brewery I assumed everyone knew this. Stop moaning and next time do some research before you sign that contract.
 
 
On 30 Jul 2013 at 10:33pm Walter wrote:
Great to hear that a business did well in the doom and gloom of the current economy!


20 posts left

Your response


You must now log in (or register) to post
Click here to add a link »
Smile
Smile Wink Sad Confused Kiss Favourite Fishing Devil Cool

terms


 

commercial square badge 29:143
commercial square badge

Were the Borough Zulus blacking up last night? more
QUOTE OF THE MOMENT
I may not agree with you, but I will defend to the death your right to make an ass of yourself.
Oscar Wilde