Tuesday, 4 October 2011

Go On Then, Just One More Giggle

Seeing as 'Ex Democrat' mentioned it in yesterday's comments, how about a little chuckle at Punch's expense. Last time, I promise.

2007.

Francis Patton, [Punch Taverns] customer services director said: “Too many people are looking at the smoking ban as a threat, but we know this is a huge opportunity. The smoking ban is a great opportunity to get new customers (who want to eat) into pubs and also keep people there who go regularly.”
And now (click to enlarge for full schadenfreude joy).


Punch Taverns grabbed that 'opportunity' of a 99% collapse in their share price with both hands, so they did. Well done, you sage Captains of industry, you.

After supping with the Devil, what else did they really expect?

And in case that didn't make you laugh enough, here's the comedian who tops the bill in these parts of late (you may want to hum the Benny Hill theme tune as you read this utter crud from Linda Bauld).

Impact on the Hospitality Industry

Annual Business Inquiry data were only available to 2008 at the time the scoping study was conducted. These data showed that turnover fell in 2007 for bars but not for restaurants or hotels.

Data on consumer spending showed some signs of a small decline in the third quarter of 2007 in the period following the introduction of smokefree legislation, but the size of this fall did not reach statistical significance
See, that chart from above is just an illusion. It didn't happen. Professional anti-smoker Linda Bauld says so, so it must be true.

Because when Labour were looking to ascertain the effect of the Health Act 2006 (smoking ban, to you and me) and paying nearly £50,000 for the 'expert' opinion, who do you think they hired to do so?

Was it ...

A) An eminent accountant
B) An accomplished economist, or
C) A dedicated anti-smoking health professional with no grounding whatsoever in business or financial affairs, and with a track record of producing bullshit?

Hmmm, that's not as funny, is it? The joke's on all of us instead for having to put up with such blatant manipulation and mendacity.


14 comments:

Frank said...

But, but, it can't be! It's the recession, social change, Supermarket competition. It must be. The ONS said that 'footfall' had increased and they know coz they've got a little Elf in every entrance and exit in every Pub in the country counting 'em. Them figgers and drawin's 'as got to be wrong, innit?

The above is taken from Hansard and is the answer from the DoH to a question put in the House.

Wonder what dear old Francis puts it down to?

karagiannis_dim said...

Dick,it's common sense that the antis know more things for you than yourself!!!!(They would safely make a study that shows with statistical significance that they are more libertarian than you are!)

- They know more about bar and restaurant industry than the industry itself!
- They know more about air filtration than the experts in air filtration themselves!
- They know more for the economic costs of smoking than economists themselves!

Blimey,I want to become an anti because I am like God,I know everything for everyone!

Anonymous said...

Wasn't the share price fall something to do with the crash in property prices? I remember reading a comment to that effect by a chap named Rollo.

Caedmon's Cat said...

We are surrounded by insurmountable opportunities..

Anonymous said...

Great stuff, i will be laughing all the way to tesco.

Anonymous said...

One reader commented on the
Rollo (excuse me while I break wind
near the cats nose)suggestion of property devaluation.
Spot on Rollo,you miniscule pimp,
with over 10,000 venues boarded up and another 10,000 on their deathbed its hardly surprising the
value has collased.
Now we have the Neo Marxist Coalition chuddering about revitaising small businesses
( excuse me while I throw up on my
Monday Club Membership Card)
Just how much pathos and folly will the British people tolerate.
While we are falling of our stools laughing at the idiots who run the Pubcos another little snippet no
longer viewable on the pitifull BBC Financial Daily Liar.
Enterprise(Snack Bars)Inns
July 1st 2007 Share 689.00
October 4th 2011 Share 33.25
My Dear Rollo and other snivellers
You can kid the dipsticks
You cant kid the markets

All seeing 4 eyes

Mark Wadsworth said...

Splendid! Can you do charts for all the various pub companies, just to rub it in?

WV: destru

Lysistrata said...

Perfect, Dick, just perfect. :D

I'll print it out and stick it on my wall next to the Bauld report: gives me an extra target for darts practice. While smoking.

(Her report was seriously crap, wasn't it? Every so often I take another look at it - and think: WTF?)

Ian Thorpe said...

The great questions:
Does God exist?
How big is the universe?
Is there any meaning to life?
Why do politicians all assume we want to be told how to live our lives by academics?
Why do businesmen assume sucking up to politician's 'causes' will make their custom,ers happy?

Dick Puddlecote said...

Anon @ 14:23: Not really, no. Punch have been hamstrung because the ban came along just after they had made a few ambitious business acquisitions. Perhaps they really did swallow tobacco control's propaganda about a new golden age for pubs post-smoking ban and it wasn't just business bravado to impress investors. Who knows?

Anyway, along came the ban, business fell off a cliff, and they were left struggling to service the debt they had accrued to finance said acquisitions. They had a great plan to sell off a load of their less profitable pubs to counteract this but, of course, because not many people could be arsed using them since the ban (hence why they were poorly performing), the selling prices were deflated (presumably the straw that Rollo is clutching?). As a result, it's highly questionable if even selling assets will be able to clear the debt, meaning they are technically fucked, or close to being so.

Pffft! ;)

Anonymous said...

Behind the bravado of Punch and the other pubcos was the secret deal made with the government - it was a trade-off.

They would be granted 24-hour opening if they agreed not to protest against the later smoking ban. They fell for it.

24-hour opening was never going to affect more than a few city-centre student-piss-pots, but they somehow imagined the 'gain' there would offset any minor losses from the smoking ban.

In parallel, the brewers knew this was bollocks, so they upscaled their deals with the supermarkets to maintain their volumes, but through a cheaper delivery channel.

That secret deal remains secret - no-one will yet admit to it, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. The evidence is there for all to see.

Anonymous said...

But even so they still do nothing to try to overturn the ban or even get a half measure implemented, Turkeys really do vote for Xmas then.

Joseph Takagi said...

The Bingo halls point in there is complete nonsense. Rank closed 10% of their halls in Scotland after the smoking ban came in, but guess what, none in England at the same time.

It doesn't matter where, or when you look. Ireland saw the number of licensses drop in the middle of the boom. The bars in New Jersey saw increased trade from people driving over from New York after New York banned it. The pubs worst hit are those that don't have much food trade and in more working-class areas with higher levels of smokers. I've seen no data that supports the opposite hypothesis, that it had no effect.

We should call these people what they are: deniers.

Michael J. McFadden said...

Dick, thank you. This graph with accompanying commentary is a quick 'n perfect response to the parroted posts about the ban not hurting pub biz.

Joseph, very true, and while I don't have the specific URL handy at the moment, if you visit Chris Snowdon's

http://velvetgloveironfist.blogspot.com/

you'll find an entry there from six months or a year ago where he showed the differential time impact of the different smoking bans on different countries regardless of "the economy."

- MJM