Wetherspoon ( J.d.) Share Discussion Threads

[gbb483] 23/2/2011 16:48

Posters rising to isis' bait is also getting dull. Just filter the ignoramus and save the rest of us (who already filter him) from having to filter you as well.

[seahorsel3isure] 23/2/2011 13:21

Isis, your rant is getting a bit dull.

Smoking is NOT illegal, agreed. BUT smoking in public places IS illegal.

I agree with you that the smoking ban has affected pubs trade, of course it has. BUT, around the same time as the smoking ban (ie a couple of years either side), deregulation came into the industry so there was a large increase in licensed premises ie supply increased. Plus the country went into recession.

So in my considered opinion, and I have a leisure background, the smoking ban on its own was not the factor for pubs closing, although it is a contributing factor to the change in the leisure / pub sector.

IMO, the two major contributing factors (and they go hand in hand) are the later opening hours which means people can 'load up' at home and the cheap supermarket drinks which encourage loading up at home.

Combine this with increase prices in pubs due to duty increases, VAT increases etc and this give a considered reason for the closure of so many pubs.

See how, with a little bit of effort, we can get onto a structured discussion of pubcos and this leads on to why JDW will either benefit from being last man standing or suffer from reduced trade due to MANY contributing factors.

Reasoned debate, go on, give it a go!

:-)

[isis] 22/2/2011 19:59

jeff - errr, there is a choice.

Smokers don't go to the Pubs in Winter and they close down - end of. Oh and btw smoking is not illegal and I will be back in all the Pubs in the Summer whether non smokers like it or not. :-))

They will have to stay inside whilst I enjoy the Sun.

[jeffian] 22/2/2011 19:44

"isis - 22 Feb'11 - 18:00 - 1929 of 1933

snoppity et al - you complete miss the point.

Smokers are only asking for their own Pubs or at least a room.

What don't you understand about that?

IT'S CALLED CHOICE."

No, isis, YOU completely miss the point and your obsession simply clogs up thread after thread with this complete irrelevance. You haven't got the choice because our legislators, in their wisdom, made it illegal to smoke in public places. It doesn't matter what you, I or snoppity think about it, it's a fact. For investors in JDW (or any other pubco) they only need to be dealing with factors affecting trade here and now, and in the future, and none of your posts here has added one jot of wisdom to the case for/against investing in this company. Plague your MP with these rants, if you want; try to get the law changed; buy tobacco company shares; these would all be more appropriate avenues for your frustrations than boring us rigid here.

btw, I agree with seahorseleisure that the Publican article was a good read and made a certain case, but it is a historical case - backward looking - and doesn't have much relevance going forward.

[isis] 22/2/2011 18:40

In the Summer months I make a point of bringing my Largest Cuban Havana's which I have purchased on my Winter Hols to all the local JDW's Pub Gardens. :-))

[isis] 22/2/2011 18:33

I don't suppose you will give up driving will you?


Car fumes worse than smoking - but we already knew that didn't we?? ;-))



Former banker's pollution fight a breath of fresh air
Simon Birkett explains why he gave up a top job at HSBC to campaign for cleaner air in London

Share
10

Comments (18)

Hélène Mulholland
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 22 February 2011 12.55 GMT
Article history

Former HSBC banker Simon Birkett has spent the past five years pressuring the government to improve air quality in London. Photograph: Frank Baron for the Guardian
Simon Birkett is fighting for air – of the clean variety. The 51-year-old former banker has spent the past five years campaigning against poor air quality and what he describes as the "biggest public health failing or cover-ups in modern history".

He is waiting to see whether the government has obtained a delay to comply with a key air-quality law on dangerous particles, known as PM10s, which will allow it to avoid up to £300m in fines. He wants the request to be turned down to give the UK a "wake-up call" over what many believe is a serious public health issue.

Methodical research, tireless lobbying and questioning, and freedom of information requests have left him with the impression that the government "seems willing to do or say anything except actually get on and tackle the problem".

Last year, monitoring equipment in the City of London repeatedly recorded dangerous levels of minute airborne particles, giving the city the unenviable reputation as one of the most polluted in Europe . "It is time that the London mayor and the so-called greenest government realise that compliance with health-based air-quality laws is not an optional extra," he says.

Birkett's Campaign for Clean Air in London, which was recently absorbed by Clean Air in London, does exactly what it says on the tin.

Although he voted Conservative at the last general election, Birkett says his campaign is non-party political. He heaps most of the blame for the UK's pollution problems on the former Labour government, which he says failed to tackle the problem adequately. However, he is also less than impressed with the coalition's efforts, and accuses Boris Johnson, the London mayor, of taking "backward steps" on the issue.

"It is time to say enough is enough and show a willingness to act," he says. "If instead of saying air quality is fine and it only takes six months off your life, people were saying actually it takes up to 11 years off your life, that it is worse than smoking and reduces the lung size of kids living near a very busy road by 15%, I reckon you'd have the public clamouring for action."

Birkett found his campaigning legs relatively late in life, while working in the senior echelons of HSBC. The Australia-born, privately schooled son of a civil engineer and foreign office secretary worked in several posts at the bank over 21 years, but his past three were spent juggling the day job with campaigning. In 2009 he took early retirement to devote his time to the fight against pollution.

He says he puts in 50 to 60 hours a week, relies on his modest pension and savings, and admits to having learned his campaigning skills on the job. He has become more media savvy over the years and relies on Twitter and a regularly updated website to get his message across.

The former banker says his campaign style is neither aggressive nor passive, but "that middle road where you just keep making your point". His accountability is to the network of supporters signed up to his campaign, among them borough councillors and several members of the London assembly.

His efforts in pressuring the government for official figures on premature deaths are, by his own reckoning, his biggest achievement.

It was a chance article in a local newspaper in 2006 that alerted Birkett to the poor quality of air breathed in by Londoners. He had been serving on the Knightsbridge residents' association, in west London, and was engaged in a lengthy battle with Westminster council against rat-running in local streets.

He discovered there were powerful laws in Europe to protect the public from heavy air pollution, which were being breached in the UK. "I thought if these public laws were complied with then we would achieve most of the aims we wanted – less traffic, quieter roads, better quality of life, health and less noise," he says.

As late as 2010 the only official government estimates available suggested about 8,000 people had died prematurely in 2005 because of short-term exposure to PM10s emitted by industry, traffic and domestic heating. Some 1,000 of those hailed from Greater London.

In 2009, the European Environment Agency published figures suggesting those figures were almost three times higher. Birkett wasted no time writing to the then health secretary, Alan Johnson, urging him to publish the true scale of the problem – but no answer came.

He submitted evidence to the House of Commons environmental audit committee, whose subsequent report concluded that poor air quality made asthma worse, exacerbated heart disease and respiratory illness and "probably causes more mortality and morbidity than passive smoking, road traffic accidents or obesity".

Living in a pollution hot spot could shave up to nine years off the lives of the most vulnerable, the cross-party panel of MPs found. They urged the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to make air quality a higher priority and release the latest figures on premature deaths.

A week later, the London mayor revealed the estimates for London: 4,300 premature deaths caused by poor air quality every year, costing some £2bn a year.

An official nationwide estimate was published by the committee on the medical effects of air pollutants shortly after, which showed that 29,000 premature deaths in the UK in 2008 were attributable to long-term exposure to PM2.5 – even smaller particles. It also found the particles, combined with other factors, might have contributed to the early deaths of up to 200,000 people.

Birkett's sights are now on the time extension for PM10 daily limit values. Thanks to London, the UK is still in breach of the European commission directive five years on and has had its first bid for an extension turned down. If the latest one is refused, the UK is likely to be referred to the European court of justice, which could impose hefty fines.

His frustrations with the Labour government over its failure to act has been compounded by the Tory-led coalition, which he believes attempted to "mislead" the European commission in September on the scale of the breaches.

He is dismayed that the government is blocking a freedom of information request he lodged two years ago, and disappointed that the Liberal Democrats' manifesto promise to work towards full compliance with air-quality laws by 2012 has become a pledge only to work towards it.

As for the London mayor, his recently published air-quality strategy for the capital is "not fit for purpose", says Birkett, a claim which is strongly refuted by city hall. He balks at Johnson's decision to delay by more than 15 months the third phase of the low emission zone, designed to cut harmful emissions by encouraging the replacement of high-polluting vans and lorries with models meeting the required emission standards.

The decision to abolish the western extension of the congestion charge zone was not forward-looking either, he adds. "We need to clean up the buses and taxis, have one or more additional low emission zone in inner London, and a big campaign to build public understanding."

Even if the government is granted a time extension for PM10 daily limit values, its problems will not be over: it is still in breach of another standard on nitrogen dioxide (No2), which was due to have been met last year.

Birkett – whose tireless anti-pollution efforts were rewarded with the City of London Corporation's sustainable city award for air quality this month – has no plans to quit the campaign trail. "There is a long way to go," he says. "I'll stop either when we've actually met the objectives, which is the World Health Organisation standards, or if somebody else took it on." For now, he seems the right man for the job.

[isis] 22/2/2011 18:32

blah, blah, blah - you are aiming at the wrong culprits - even smokers can't bear to be near traffic:-


Call to tackle pollution 'role in 50,000 early deaths'


The report estimates the health costs of air pollution at up to £20.2bn a year
More could be done to prevent the early deaths of up to 50,000 people each year hastened by air pollution, MPs say.
A Commons Environmental Audit Committee report said failure to reduce pollution had put an "enormous" cost on the NHS and could cost millions in EU fines.
It said the UK should be "ashamed" of its poor air quality which was contributing to conditions such as asthma, heart disease and cancer.
The government accepted more could be done and would consider the report.
'Invisible killer'
Pollutants such as ozone, nitrogen oxides and "particulate matter" - tiny particles - from transport and power stations have been blamed for contributing to early deaths.
Particulate matter is estimated to reduce people's lives by an average seven to eight months, while in pollution hotspots vulnerable residents, such as those with asthma, could be dying up to nine years early, the report says.
Air pollution also leads to damage to wildlife and agriculture, with ground-level ozone estimated to reduce wheat yields in the south of Britain by 5% to 15%.
EAC chairman Tim Yeo said: "Air pollution probably causes more deaths than passive smoking, traffic accidents or obesity, yet it receives very little attention from government or the media.
"In the worst affected areas this invisible killer could be taking years off the lives of people most at risk, such as those with asthma."
Fines risk
The health costs of pollution are estimated at between £8.5bn and £20.2bn each year, with the report also warning that the UK risks "substantial" fines for its failure to meet EU regulations on limiting pollutants.
The committee said major changes were needed to policies on transport, which accounts for up to 70% of pollution in towns and cities.
It called for measures such as national standards for low emission zones, like the one covering London, to make it easier and cheaper for local authorities to implement.

The government has gone full steam ahead with policies like Heathrow expansion that will lead to more illness and premature death
Simon Hughes
Liberal Democrats
The report added more research was needed to understand the impact of particulates created by wear on tyres and brakes and those lying on the road which are whipped up into the air by passing vehicles.
The MPs said although climate change policies such as encouraging people to use public transport had helped, others policies, such as the use of diesel vehicles which were more fuel-efficient, were exacerbating air pollution by increasing production of particulates.
Liberal Democrat shadow energy and climate change secretary Simon Hughes said: "The government has scorned its legal obligations and instead gone full steam ahead with policies like Heathrow expansion that will lead to more illness and premature deaths.
"It is time ministers cleaned up their act."
The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said it took improving air quality very seriously and that it had made significant achievements such as reducing sulphur dioxide emissions by 86% since 1990.
The spokesperson added it was working across government to reduce emissions from transport and electricity generation.

[snoppity] 22/2/2011 18:25

Well, unfortunately smoke, being particles suspended in a gas, tends not to respect imperfect physical barriers like doors which are constantly opened and closed. I even hate to sit within ten yards of the front door of the Spoons, because the smoke blows in. Even ignoring any carcinogenic arguments, it stinks and is highly unpleasant. Being a smoker, you are probably unaware of this, as your sense of smell will be numbed.

I used to smoke sixty a day, so I feel your pain. I gave up seventeen years ago. It was very difficult, but the best thing I ever did. I am highly sensitive to the smell of smoke, and can still get a bit of a headrush if I smell a cigarette. For many years after quitting, this presented a massive temptation to start again. It's so difficult to quit, and that's what makes us reformed smokers so anti - that just a whiff of uninhaled smoke can set you straight back on that road to ruin.

So that choice argument does cut both ways.

[isis] 22/2/2011 18:00

snoppity et al - you complete miss the point.

Smokers are only asking for their own Pubs or at least a room.

What don't you understand about that?

IT'S CALLED CHOICE.

[snoppity] 22/2/2011 17:53

I very much enjoy a smoke-free evening in the Spoons, and I have many friends who think likewise. But I agree..."Anyway, moot point as we are where we are!"

[seahorsel3isure] 22/2/2011 13:11

Isis, I may not agree with all you say, but that article makes decent reading, and I can't disagree with the general content.

I agree with Jeffian that the law is the law and we can't change that but I have to agree that the industry doesn't seem to be financially better off now than 5 years ago and I like the line 'There never was any demand for non-smoking pubs'.

Not sure if that is 100% true as many people actually DO prefer non smoking pubs but it is probably true to say that there was not sufficient ADDIIONAL demand from non smokers to replance the income lost by smokers who stopped frequenting sites.

Anyway, moot point as we are where we are!

Cheers

SH

[isis] 20/2/2011 09:28

Pete Robinson: The British Pub - A thesis on it's decline and fall

16 February, 2011
By Pete Robinson

'James Cook is a 3rd year Business Student at Newcastle University, writing a dissertation on pub closures, and the reasons behind them. James was asking for opinions and observations in The Publican's forum. My own response became way too long once I'd slipped into rant mode. So here it is presented as a blog...'

For 450 years British pubs and their smoking customers have enjoyed a mutually beneficial relationship that has survived essentially unchanged through wars, periods of extreme poverty and famine, riots, massive social change, the Industrial Revolution, the English Civil War, WW2 rationing, licencing and taxation, opening hour restrictions, many recessions, and a great deal more besides.

Throughout that long and stormy history pubs have NEVER closed in the anything like the numbers they have since July 1st 2007, not even 100 or so years ago when magistrates pursued a policy of drastically reducing pub numbers by refusing to renew licences.

There are pubs closing today that have been serving their communities for 400 years. Imagine the tales these iconic watering holes could tell but tragically they are lost to our culture forever. Yet we dismiss these closures because "some pubs deserve to close" apparently.

I don't believe that. Even the urban community pubs on 'rough' estates and grotty back-street boozers had their place in their respective communities and were trading well enough before 2007.

Yes, pubs have occasionally waned in popularity. In recent times the mass arrival of TV in the 1960s caused a temporary drop off, and there was some gradual erosion in trade throughout the 80's and 90's due at least in part to the plod's manic enforcement of the drink-drive laws along with newly introduced jail terms for offenders.

However since the new millennium pubs had fought their way back to health and by 2006 were more popular than ever, with The Publican reporting overall turnover at a FIVE-YEAR-PEAK. We'd never had it so good, and things could only get better still.

Smokers accounted for over HALF of that income.

Then the trade went collectively mad and ushered in the blanket smoking ban with barely a murmur of protest. The majority of front-line publicans were intelligent enough to have grave concerns. But their voice was drowned out by those upper echelons of the industry, men-in-suits, who presume to speak for us.

Driven by pure greed we were won over by a barrage of bogus statistics coming from ASH, CRUK and the DoH 'proving' that we'd keep our existing smoking customers who'd simply accept the ban as meekly as we had.

The icing on the cake was to be the countless millions of 'new' non-smoking customers who were poised like a coiled spring, awaiting the starting pistol on July 1st 2007 to risk serious injury in the crush to pack our pubs to the rafters as they quaffed pint after pint in such quantities you would need to employ a team of cellarmen to support all the extra bar staff you'd need - and a SecuriCorps van to bank your takings.

This better class of customer was termed 'NewBreed' and we were promised he'd set the tills ringing as soon as we'd driven out the riff-raff. The advice was to steam-clean, fumigate and redecorate throughout replacing curtains and fabrics wherever possible. At all costs we must completely eradicate any evidence that society's scum had ever been there. The 'New Breed' of customer wouldn't like that.

So we built a few half-open cattle sheds in our pubs' back yards and banished the most loyal, better spending half of our customers out into the cold and rain expecting them to be grateful. After all the stats did say most smokers secretly wanted to quit and really we'd be doing 'em a favour!

Of course NewBreed was merely a clever figment of the anti-smoking lobby's imagination, but even savvy pubco bosses bought it hook, line and sinker. Strong objections from organisations such as CAMRA evaporated in a wave of hysteric euphoria as it seemed everyone 'embraced' the new age of endless prosperity to come.

From the day of the ban's inception pubs immediately began to shed customers, and haven't yet plugged the leak. We forgot that pubs were built by the pennies of the common man, yet we tried to move upmarket in a vain attempt to satisfy a demand that never existed.

So far we've lost 8,000 - 10,000 pubs (the jury's still out on the exact figure) from a 2007 total pub stock of 56,000. Many more are skating on the edge of insolvency, just hanging on. I estimate that sometime in 2013 we'll pass the 25% mark and we'll likely see half of our pubs gone by 2017.

Even those pubs that survive often aren't 'pubs' anymore, not as we know them. They've become dining halls no longer catering for the drinking classes. Here in the Midland huge numbers have been snapped up to reopen as Indian restaurants - although technically they are still 'pubs'.

Those, like myself, who tried desperately to warn of the carnage to come were dismissed as conspiracy theorists, doomsayers and nicotine addicts - but time has proved us right.

You may wonder why this industry remains in denial? Ask yourself, if you were a pubco director and you'd seen your share price plummet from £14 each to around 50p how would you explain your actions to your shareholders? Would you 'fess up and accept your part of the blame? Not likely.

The loudest voices on The Publican's forum crying out to keep the blanket ban in it's present form come from obvious smoke haters.

They'd have you believe theirs is the majority opinion although recent trade surveys clearly show 4 out of every 5 publicans want the law amending to allow separate, ventilated indoor smoking rooms.

But when they genuinely are publicans so firmly opposed to their fellow publicans' CHOICE of introducing an indoor smoking room you will generally find they have well positioned pubs in fairly affluent areas less affected by the ban, or even benefiting from it as less fortunate pubs close down. That's why they're in the minority by four-to-one against.

Hence you should ask this simple question. If they truly believe what they say, that this pub holocaust has little or nothing to do with the smoking ban, what possible objection could they have?

After all, if they genuinely believe the ban made no difference to trade they must also believe the reinstatement of an indoor smoking room would similarly not advantage their competitors.

The truth is they KNOW beyond any shadow of a doubt that their customers would simply migrate overnight to any neighbouring pub that offered a smoking room. They're terrified of choice in case it hits their takings but you can guarantee one thing. If the law actually were to be amended and choice restored they'd be the first ones rushing to put the ashtrays back out.

If the ban had been good for pubs then I'd have backed it from the beginning. My one aim is to help save as many pubs as possible, it's the only reason I campaign for more fairness. OTOH they are only interested in the future of one pub - their own.

There never was any demand for non-smoking pubs so the industry will never find it possible to replace it's dwindling customer base. Nor is there sufficient demand to support 40-odd thousand food-led pubs. It's market forces, plain as.

So with the trade not even campaigning for any amendment to the law we'll see our once-great pub culture wither and die over the next 10 years. At best we'll be left with a few chains of managed, town-centre food pubs-come-coffee-houses, basically Wetherspoon-clones, totaling around 12,000 in all.

Sure we'll attempt to rebuild and one day in the distant future new pubs will again be built and old one's converted back from flats, shops and Indian restaurants. But they'll just be bars and food halls, a mere parody of what once was, like those 'English Pubs' that litter the streets of Benedorm.

We'll never recapture that quintessential time-honoured character that made British pubs unique - the envy of the world. Much of that's already gone, ever since we threw open our doors to the forces of political correctness. We lost something very special the day when we allowed the State behind the bar. It's one reason why the customers have been drifting away.

Countless previous generations have cherished this trade before handing it safely down to the next. To our shame we may be the last generation to remember what a real pub was like. In years to come your own son may be writing a dissertation on how the Great British pub disappeared into the pages of history.

[snoppity] 14/2/2011 01:18

But it was alot cheaper, I bet!

[mroalan] 13/2/2011 18:27

was in Torquay for the weekend,JD,s not very clever,food (curry night) not as good as my local,strange that as i would presume they were supplied by the same co.very dark and dingy,beer ok (real ale) then again not the same quality as my local.

[jeffian] 09/2/2011 18:02

isis,
I have never said "the ban has had nothing to do with the demise of the Pub industry". My point is simply that it's the law, it ain't going to change and there's nothing you can do about it however much you clog up this thread with your obsessions. Investors in JDW are going to get no guidance or insight into their company from your last few posts which are either about smoking or PUB, a completely different company.

Why don't you create a new thread about this subject where you can moan away to your heart's content with like-minded people? A bit like a 'smoking area', come to think of it.

[isis] 09/2/2011 13:21

And look what happened the following year - THE BAN. You can say we went into recession but we didn't for very long and we have been through a recession every decade and two World Wars which all made very little difference, until of course - THE SMOKING BAN:-



Darlings of the stock market?

8 December, 2006
Pub property prices remain at an all time high and there doesn't appear to be much of a slowdown on the horizon.

As we approach the end of another year (where did 2006 go to!!!) and with the reporting season virtually complete, it is worth considering how well the big pub stocks have fared in 2006, how their relationship is with the city institutions, and what their prospects look like for 2007.

On the face of it even the most sceptical observer would have to answer very well, strong and good. At the time of writing the FTSE 100 is up around 10 per cent over the past 12 months, up 36.5 per cent over the last three years and up 15.7 per cent over the last five years.

With interest rates still relatively low historically at 5 per cent, and even after factoring in another quarter of one per cent rise in early 2007 which most economists are predicting, the cost of borrowing remains cheap.

The other factor worth considering here is the constant increase in house prices. They remained strong in November, rising by a further 1.4% and although the buy to let market has cooled following the recent interest rate hikes, the outlook is far from bleak.

Pub property prices remain at an all time high and there doesn't appear to be much of a slowdown on the horizon.

But back to the stock market, where the pub stocks have had a great year. On a 52 week high-low spread some of the numbers are startling. The current share price is also shown as a comparison.

To my mind, this performance – and their 2006 results – have not only demonstrated what a strong, resolute sector we are privileged to work in, but also how adaptable the industry can be to the challenges and changes thrust upon it.

The performances of these six groups reflect the quality of the management teams behind them and an attention to customer service that would hold them in good stead against any operator in any sector of the British economy.

Two interesting trends appear to be emerging from the results – an increasing switch towards food led pubs and strong like for like sales growth across most estates.

The other interesting issue is how quickly and how well these operators integrate acquisitions. Punch with Spirit, M&B with Whitbread, Greene King with Hardys & Hansons and W&DB with Celtic Inns are all great examples of how to successfully integrate a business and drive out synergies whilst at the same time maintaining a high quality service across the enlarged estate.

So what will Santa Claus bring us in 2007. The City is probably bracing itself for the 1 July 2007 smoking ban and will no doubt be intrigued with the Scottish ban once we have seen trading figures after this winter. We will also get an early indication of Wales' performance before the ban hits England.

Corporately, expect to see more M&A activity and more discussions around Real Estate Investment Trusts – a topic I hope to cover in the New Year.

As we head into 2007 clinging (barely) onto the Ashes, with a Spring Cricket World Cup and, dare I say it, a Rugby World Cup in the Autumn, I feel that the industry is in good cheer and has every right to look forward to a successful 2007.

Geoff Newton is Relationship Director UK Licensed Trade, Barclays Bank

[isis] 09/2/2011 12:43

People can deny all they like, but I and the Mrs. do not go into Bars in the Winter months - that is costing them thousands from us alone. The Pubco's and the Government were clearly duped but still refuse to make any amendments, well I'll be spending my money abroad:-

ASH (badly written) news release - 25th. February 2003 : 'Official - smoking bans are good for business. ASH accuses hospitality industry of "crying wolf"':

"Policymakers should be left in no doubt that the evidence to support the trade just isn't there..." said Ms Sandford, pointing out that with more than 80% of the population favour smoke free public places. Any fall in the number of smokers removing their custom as a result of a smoking ban is more than likely to be offset by an increase in pub goers who prefer a smoke free environment."

It all seemed so logical, didn't it?



c777 23 hours ago
Smoking ban ?
The Elephant in the room is the term I believe.
I'm a smoker like millions of others, i've hardly been in a bar since 2007.

How to lose customers ?
Force them outside .
Flag
Like Reply

JonathanBagley 1 day ago
Thought the smoking ban would bring in lots of new customers, so welcomed it. Bit of a misjudgement there lads, eh? You should have done the MBA module on not being an idiot.

[sper] 09/2/2011 12:16

mmmm, opportunity for JDW you think then?

[isis] 09/2/2011 12:13

Another one that supported the ban and boy did they pay for it:-


Future of Punch pubs in balance
By Mark Leftly
Sunday, 6 February 2011

The UK arm of Ambac, a bond insurer, has hired debt restructuring experts ahead of a battle over the future of the indebted pubs group Punch Taverns.

It is understood that FTI Consulting will negotiate for Ambac when Ian Dyson, the recently installed Punch chief executive, concludes a business review in the coming weeks. Although Punch is worth around £430m, it had debt of more than £3bn in its last annual results.

Punch, which has 6,770 pubs, has already hired Goldman Sachs and Blackstone to advise on a restructuring, while Rothschild is acting for bondholders. Ambac's US arm was in trouble last year, which led to a hit on Punch even though the UK arm is in rude health.

Restructuring experts believe that any proposal will be subject to months of negotiations.

Punch's shares closed at 66.2p on Friday, down 2.43 per cent on the start of the day's trading.

[seahorsel3isure] 02/2/2011 13:04

libertine, those exclude exceptional items - stated EPS per the statutory account for last year was 29.3p