smoking and the pub - Page 65

Russ · 02-11-2005, 22:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xaccers

I just find it strange that they would have been able to set up a business with financial backing from a bank on the premiss that their business could not succeed unless they got an aid package.
Have the new owners recieved aid packages?

Didn't you read the second paragraph above? It's a package open to business in the areas which can demonstrate they are at a distinct disadvantage or are seriously at risk from increased or new competition. Take my word for it (and I'm sure Chris W can back me up on this) that Wind Street is FULL of bars - every other building is a pub or club, there must be at least 30 of them on a road just over a quarter of a mile long. All are 'smoking' bars - The Lounge had trouble keeping up with them. Bear in mind that it did not start up as a non-smoking pub.

Xaccers · 02-11-2005, 22:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russ D

Didn't you read the second paragraph above? It's a package open to business in the areas which can demonstrate they are at a distinct disadvantage or are seriously at risk from increased or new competition. Take my word for it (and I'm sure Chris W can back me up on this) that Wind Street is FULL of bars - every other building is a pub or club, there must be at least 30 of them on a road just over a quarter of a mile long. All are 'smoking' bars - The Lounge had trouble keeping up with them. Bear in mind that it did not start up as a non-smoking pub.

So I take it that as the new owners haven't gone bust too, that either:
1. They've gotten the business aid packages which the previous owners missed out on 4 times in a row
2. Smokers drink enough to keep them in business

Russ · 02-11-2005, 23:08

The new place has only been open a few weeks.

Are you under the impression that I'm suggesting that pubs will be kept in business by non-smokers? Because as far as I'm aware, I've never said or implied that.

ian@huth · 02-11-2005, 23:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russ D

Didn't you read the second paragraph above? It's a package open to business in the areas which can demonstrate they are at a distinct disadvantage or are seriously at risk from increased or new competition. Take my word for it (and I'm sure Chris W can back me up on this) that Wind Street is FULL of bars - every other building is a pub or club, there must be at least 30 of them on a road just over a quarter of a mile long. All are 'smoking' bars - The Lounge had trouble keeping up with them. Bear in mind that it did not start up as a non-smoking pub.

Over 30 pubs and clubs in such a small area and just one non-smoking pub cannot make enough profit to survive? The remaining pubs that allow smoking have survived even though the vast majority of people (as claimed by some posters in this thread) want to escape the smoky environments that smoking pubs have. I think that fact tells you a lot about what most pub goers want and that isn't a ban on smoking. Most pubs in this country don't have grants to help them survive so why should The Lounge be any different? If The Lounge had difficulty keeping up why was that?

Russ · 02-11-2005, 23:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by ian@huth

I think that fact tells you a lot about what most pub goers want and that isn't a ban on smoking.

I'll try to make this as clear as I can...

I know fully well that non-smoking pubs are likely to be at risk due to the majority of people in the area not wanting to go there.

The point I have tried to make (and evidently not hard enough as no-one seems to take any notice) is that the argument of "If people want a non-smoking pub then go and find one as there are enough of them around" is worthless.

Xaccers · 02-11-2005, 23:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russ D

The new place has only been open a few weeks.

Are you under the impression that I'm suggesting that pubs will be kept in business by non-smokers? Because as far as I'm aware, I've never said or implied that.

Oh definitely, I don't want to come across as suggesting you said that at all because you never did

If I understand something you said a little while back, you're for more choice than a ban, such as more establishments becoming non-smoking on their own accord rather than being forced to by legislation.

Why I appear to be harping on about The Lounge is because you've given us an actuall example of a pub which had decided to become non-smoking, and closed down afterwards.
Now, given that the new owners have not continued with the non-smoking status, this suggests that they do not see it as a good business venture, which suggests that it was also not a good business venture for the previous owners and led to them selling up.
If over a similar length of time, and also without the business aid packages, the new Lounge is a success, we can infer from this that as a smoking establishment, it is able to survive whereas a non-smoking establishment, it faltered.
This has serious implications on the impact of such a ban on other establishments.
Pubs which don't serve food will be unaffected.
Pubs which currently do server food will have to decide whether to continue with food and hope they don't loose on the more profitable drink sales, or give up serving food which leads to more people drinking on an empty stomach, and you know what effect that has!

Angua · 02-11-2005, 23:22

Sadly the highest number of smokers these days IIRC is in the age group that frequent Town Centre pubs and clubs on a regular basis and still have the belief they are invincible (hence IMHO the failure of this particular premises).
Those of us who feel our mortality more would like the chance to just go to the pub and have a few drinks, play some cards (or whatever) and generally relax in a smoke free environment, and not have our already failing hearing destroyed further by loud music, or our waistlines increased by food.

Russ · 02-11-2005, 23:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xaccers

<snip>

And all that is rather irrelevant to the point I made above.

Yes I'm in favour of more choice - with the right support, promotion and backing, a non smoking pub can survive.

Paddy1 · 02-11-2005, 23:27

Then why not open one yourself if they are in such demand?

The reason that non smoking pubs don't survive is that the people that frequent pubs on a regular basis and thus keep the pubs in business are mainly smokers. If the non-smoking public would get up off their backsides and support a pub in their area that is brave enough to go non-smoking then there would be no need for this nanny stateism from the government as both smoking and non-smoking pubs would flourish.

A few pubs here have tried it and had to switch back due to falling business. Wetherspoons can only do it because their prices are ridiculously cheap which keeps the punters in.

If non-smoking pubs flourished then the non-smoking bar staff could go and work at them if they feel that strongly about it.

Instead of foisting a ban on what seems to be the majority of pub goers we would have choice and no diktats from Tony and co.

Russ · 02-11-2005, 23:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paddy1

Then why not open one yourself if they are in such demand?

I'm not a businessman/I don't have the capital/It's not my chosen profession...I could go on but I think I'll stick with "I didn't say they are in such demand".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paddy1

The reason that non smoking pubs don't survive is that the people that frequent pubs on a regular basis and thus keep the pubs in business are mainly smokers. If the non-smoking public would get up off their backsides and support a pub in their area that is brave enough to go non-smoking then there would be no need for this nanny stateism from the government as both smoking and non-smoking pubs would flourish.

Yep, been saying that for ages.

clarie · 02-11-2005, 23:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xaccers

The two things I'm comparing are comparable, hence why I'm comparing them.
You however want me to be trying to compare two uncomparable aspects of those things, which I will not do to satisfy you.

I don't know what you're talking about any more but that's ok cos I don't think you do either...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Now, given that the new owners have not continued with the non-smoking status, this suggests that they do not see it as a good business venture, which suggests that it was also not a good business venture for the previous owners and led to them selling up.

Which proves that only a blanket ban would work, because otherwise we will not be able to have a choice of smoking or non-smoking pubs.

Xaccers · 02-11-2005, 23:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russ D

And all that is rather irrelevant to the point I made above.

Yes I'm in favour of more choice - with the right support, promotion and backing, a non smoking pub can survive.

Again I agree, it has nothing to do with the point you made about lack of choice, but it has everything to do with the point other people have made suggesting that there are enough potential punters out there just gagging to to to the pub but won't because of smokers.

Paddy1 · 02-11-2005, 23:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russ D

...but I think I'll stick with "I didn't say they are in such demand".

I didn't say you did.

SlackDad · 02-11-2005, 23:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by clarie

Which proves that only a blanket ban would work, because otherwise we will not be able to have a choice of smoking or non-smoking pubs.

But wasn't the point that when given the choice the non-smoking pub folded?

Paddy1 · 02-11-2005, 23:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by clarie

Which proves that only a blanket ban would work, because otherwise we will not be able to have a choice of smoking or non-smoking pubs.

We still won't have a choice under a total ban.