Firm closing

[Kopek]

I wonder if you could get an alcohol license for Bishops Court? Or even a Casino license???

The law change on Pubs is OK because, afterall, it's only the brewery! But Gods blessed  house???

[Roger Mexico]

26 minutes ago, Happier diner said:

Yes. Like I said. It was my mistake and I apologised. I speed read it and got the wrong end of the story. I didn't read the link. I jumped to a conclusion If you are not satisfied with my apologies then call the police and have full retribution for my error. I will confess and take my punishment. 

BTW. As others have said, the old traf in Douglas is also not suitable for a wetherspoons. It's too small and in a poor location. 

Yet more proof that no one ever reads a thing I write.  Though you didn't even look at the link given that the url had the word 'Douglas' in it.   It's an odd site and a listed building, but that doesn't always stop Wetherspoons, not all their sites are the same.  But the old Nat West would be the obvious target.

[Mercenary]

22 minutes ago, Sentience said:

Watch the dreadful experience that IS the Manx McDonalds here quickly disappear is when, finally, the first Burger King opens.

Such a much much better burger taste experience.

Is this ChatGPT? Is that the point?

[Kopek]

Don't mc donalds do a chicken 'filay' sandwich? You would think KFC would take tyhat away from them? ...But no, apparently.

Burger King certainly did a good 'Bean Burger' 40 yrs ago, now?

[John Wright]

21 hours ago, woolley said:

It would be interesting if someone with money to burn challenged one of them out of interest. Restraint of trade or unfair contract basis.

But it’s neither. There are 20,000 other properties you could buy and use and it’s legally not an unfair contract term.

[John Wright]

7 hours ago, CallMeCurious said:

Isn't there a covenenant on the old prsion site on Victoria Road? (Oddly Google maps/Earth show the old prison still after 13 years) Guess it'll go once the developers on the site opposite (next to the soon to be former Shoprite HQ) will be eyeing it up no doubt.

What type of covenant? That it shouldn’t be used for incarceration, or as a pub, or no laundry in the front garden, or one building only, not more than single story?

[John Wright]

7 hours ago, Roger Mexico said:

Yet more proof that no one ever reads a thing I write.  Though you didn't even look at the link given that the url had the word 'Douglas' in it.   It's an odd site and a listed building, but that doesn't always stop Wetherspoons, not all their sites are the same.  But the old Nat West would be the obvious target.

Wouldn’t work. Not enough stairs to the potential disabled loo

[WTF]

9 hours ago, Kopek said:

Don't mc donalds do a chicken 'filay' sandwich? You would think KFC would take tyhat away from them? ...But no, apparently.

hardly surprising , the maccys chicken fillet strips and dip are better than the KFC ones , if the chicken shop isn't as good as the burger joint with chicken  what chance do they have ???  maybe kfc should try ham/beef burgers ??

[woolley]

11 hours ago, John Wright said:

But it’s neither. There are 20,000 other properties you could buy and use and it’s Leadley not an unfair contract term.

20,000 properties suitable as licensed premises in the Isle of Man? As a matter of principle, it is wrong that a business can dictate the limitations of property use when it no longer owns the property, or has any interest in it, simply to protect its own market position. If the law says otherwise, then it needs changing. The only honest answer to the question: Why the covenant? is: So that nobody else can trade there in competition with us. This is ludicrous, and quite indefensible.

 

[Fred the shred]

This covenant has led to quite a few buildings being left in a run down, scruffy, condition and subsequently impaired on  the appearance of the surrounding countryside in some cases and properties in others.    As Woolley says quite indefensible .    The attitude is shameful when other people are trying to improve the appearance of our Island.

[mollag]

Manx rumour, 🤔 Fried chicken type business in the offing for the Peter Luis premises 😐

[John Wright]

41 minutes ago, woolley said:

20,000 properties suitable as licensed premises in the Isle of Man? As a matter of principle, it is wrong that a business can dictate the limitations of property use when it no longer owns the property, or has any interest in it, simply to protect its own market position. If the law says otherwise, then it needs changing. The only honest answer to the question: Why the covenant? is: So that nobody else can trade there in competition with us. This is ludicrous, and quite indefensible.

 

Clearly, going forwards, it’s no longer relevant for licensed premises, as it’s been outlawed for future sales.

For old sales I’m not sure why you’d think that way. 

Where do you stand on Methodists imposing no alcohol or gambling restrictions on properties they sell off, or no religious use except Christian?

There are, literally, hundreds of suitable properties, plus new build possibility.

Just because a place has had a licence doesn’t mean it’ll be suitable to be re licensed after the license has been surrendered by the brewery. Nor does it follow that the covenant is the factor putting off potential purchasers. It’s much more likely to be crazy planning restrictions.

Liverpool Arms, Britannia, Waterfall, have all been unfit for purpose, and, even before they closed, in poor condition. We’ve witnessed irrational planning campaigns of the NIMBY variety against repurposing, and restrictive covenants have got dragged in.

[Barlow]

So, for the sake of argument and Manx Forum discussion purposes, say someone purchased the Traf in Douglas (yep, they did a contract with the brewery and blah blah) then sold it to someone else in a new contract, and that person opened it as a pub, and did rather spiffingly.

Brewery get shirty and take their covenant and the new owner (and/or previous owner) to court for breach of this that and the other, and claim damages. But how have they been damaged and how can that be assessed?

The new owner sells lots of beer, and for the sake of argument, has a tap of Okells that sells rather well.

How have the brewery been damaged and what court would award damages in their favour? Just because someone ignored a somewhat ridiculous covenant. To the detriment of no one. Not even the brewery.

Edited November 15, 2023 by Barlow

[woolley]

31 minutes ago, John Wright said:

Clearly, going forwards, it’s no longer relevant for licensed premises, as it’s been outlawed for future sales.

For old sales I’m not sure why you’d think that way. 

Where do you stand on Methodists imposing no alcohol or gambling restrictions on properties they sell off, or no religious use except Christian?

There are, literally, hundreds of suitable properties, plus new build possibility.

Just because a place has had a licence doesn’t mean it’ll be suitable to be re licensed after the license has been surrendered by the brewery. Nor does it follow that the covenant is the factor putting off potential purchasers. It’s much more likely to be crazy planning restrictions.

Liverpool Arms, Britannia, Waterfall, have all been unfit for purpose, and, even before they closed, in poor condition. We’ve witnessed irrational planning campaigns of the NIMBY variety against repurposing, and restrictive covenants have got dragged in.

Your first sentence says it all. It's been outlawed for future sales, so clearly it's been recognised how farcical the situation was before. Is there a reason to treat old sales any differently to new sales? If it's a nonsense now, it was a nonsense then to my mind, and all of these old covenants should be challengeable.

The premises you list may have been unfit for purpose when they closed. Doesn't mean they cannot be redeveloped, and tastefully brought up to date as eminently fit for purpose, by somebody with more idea and will to get things done than H&B has had for many years. Whether that is the case or not, it cannot be right for a previous owner with no continuing interest in the property, to hold sway over what happens (or doesn't) there in perpetuity. If it's planning restrictions causing the problem, there's no need for the covenant in any case. Of course planning has a role. Neighbours are entitled to their rights, and to make representations. The very last party that should be involved is a former owner.

You probably already know my views on the blatherings of the religious on planning or anything else.

Edited November 15, 2023 by woolley

[John Wright]

28 minutes ago, woolley said:

Your first sentence says it all. It's been outlawed for future sales, so clearly it's been recognised how farcical the situation was before. Is there a reason to treat old sales any differently to new sales? If it's a nonsense now, it was a nonsense then to my mind, and all of these old covenants should be challengeable.

The premises you list may have been unfit for purpose when they closed. Doesn't mean they cannot be redeveloped, and tastefully brought up to date as eminently fit for purpose, by somebody with more idea and will to get things done than H&B has had for many years. Whether that is the case or not, it cannot be right for a previous owner with no continuing interest in the property, to hold sway over what happens (or doesn't) there in perpetuity. If it's planning restrictions causing the problem, there's no need for the covenant in any case. Of course planning has a role. Neighbours are entitled to their rights, and to make representations. The very last party that should be involved is a former owner.

You probably already know my views on the blatherings of the religious on planning or anything else.

But whether the banning for future sales off was actually justified, or a knee jerk reaction to losing old drinking places that no one, as far as I’m aware, wanted to use as such, post brewery, is important.