Sheridans on the Docks

McTigs

dloob wrote: »

The city tribune had the story today.
The landlord has thrown them out, they say they are a few months behind in the rent but it's not about that.
Part of the terms of the lease was that the early license and the regular license be maintained, Sheridans however did not renew the early license as they didn't want to open early.
Under the licensing laws once the early license is allowed to run out a new one cannot be applied for, so the days of the early house in the docks are now over.
The landlord as a result has thrown them out.

That's pretty much the story as i heard it too.

It's an absolute ****ing joke a week before the powerboats

Madame Razz

Could they not have just renewed the early license and not opened early?

Or can you do that?

I know my friend's family have a pub with a harbour license and they don't open early ever. Granted it's in a rural area tho....

Wompa1

McTigs wrote: »

That's pretty much the story as i heard it too.

It's an absolute ****ing joke a week before the powerboats

Maybe I'm interpretting it wrong but that sounds reasonable. There was an early license for the premises. Part of the agreement was that they renew it, they didn't so they got kicked out. The property has probably lost a bit of value now since it won't have an early license.

dolphin city

i agree - an early license would be invaluable - to lose that because they were too lazy to get out of bed does not say much about them. Or maybe they thought their "business" would get a bad name if the early risers were heading down there for an early pint. Ah well, they have no business now so they cut their nose off to spite their face.

the docks always had an early license - to lose that for the sake of their "business" is terrible. Don't they know that pretty soon everybody will be going back to drinking black tower and blue nun, like in the 80's , before all the Wine CONnoisseur's were invented. Their food was pretentious, not very good and extremely expensive. Ah still, maybe Padraigeens will come back.

McTigs

dolphin city wrote: »

i agree - an early license would be invaluable - to lose that because they were too lazy to get out of bed does not say much about them. Or maybe they thought their "business" would get a bad name if the early risers were heading down there for an early pint. Ah well, they have no business now so they cut their nose off to spite their face.

the docks always had an early license - to lose that for the sake of their "business" is terrible. Don't they know that pretty soon everybody will be going back to drinking black tower and blue nun, like in the 80's , before all the Wine CONnoisseur's were invented. Their food was pretentious, not very good and extremely expensive. Ah still, maybe Padraigeens will come back.

Hilarious

Enjoy your Big Country LPs

dloob

McTigs wrote: »

That's pretty much the story as i heard it too.

It's an absolute ****ing joke a week before the powerboats

Legal negotiations are on going but as they admit the landlord has a completly watertight case.
They better hope he doesn't go after them for reducing the value of the premises as well.

skelliser

So they got greedy by refusing to pay for the early license.

Good riddance imo. The Docks is a working place, fishermen are entitled to a pint.

?Cee?view

This, if true, is horrifying.

It's incredible that people who are supposed to know how to run a business can destroy a significant portion of the value of someone's asset so negligently. Basically, it seems they've fúcked up the value of the premises. Unbelievable.

brianthebard

dolphin city wrote: »

i agree - an early license would be invaluable - to lose that because they were too lazy to get out of bed does not say much about them. Or maybe they thought their "business" would get a bad name if the early risers were heading down there for an early pint. Ah well, they have no business now so they cut their nose off to spite their face.

The early license has been a problem for sheridan's for ages, they couldn't get a sunday license as a result. I imagine they let it lapse on purpose so they could apply for a sunday license afterwards. It was pretty cynical of them if this is the case, they had an agreement with the landlord and afaik they also run no8 so it wasn't completely necessary for them to have sheridans open on a sunday. It was a dick move either way.

dolphin city

are you certain they own/run bar 8 as well = thought it was completely different people.

brianthebard

Nope not certain just what I've been told.

McTigs

This, if true, is horrifying.

It's incredible that people who are supposed to know how to run a business can destroy a significant portion of the value of someone's asset so negligently. Basically, it seems they've fúcked up the value of the premises. Unbelievable.

My God!

I dunno, either you guys weren't in Padraics in the days before it closed or are looking back with the biggest pair of rose coloured spectacles this side of San Fransisco.

The bar had basically been taken over by the dealers. It was dangerous, sinister and the staff had no control over the activity in there.

The value of the building and business was sweet **** all until Sheridans took over, cleaned it up and made a decent pub of it. Between it and No.8 they provided a welcome alternative to Quay Street. If anything Sheridans was a positive contribution to the bightening up of that whole area which has increased asset value overall.

Honestly, these romantic notions people have of Padraics with ol sea dogs with claw hands and parrots on thier shoulders enjoying a pint are literally for the birds.

?Cee?view

McTigs wrote: »

My God!

I dunno, either you guys weren't in Padraics in the days before it closed or are looking back with the biggest pair of rose coloured spectacles this side of San Fransisco.

The bar had basically been taken over by the dealers. It was dangerous, sinister and the staff had no control over the activity in there.

The value of the building and business was sweet **** all until Sheridans took over, cleaned it up and made a decent pub of it. Between it and No.8 they provided a welcome alternative to Quay Street. If anything Sheridans was a positive contribution to the bightening up of that whole area which has increased asset value overall.

Honestly, these romantic notions people have of Padraics with ol sea dogs with claw hands and parrots on thier shoulders enjoying a pint are literally for the birds.

Fair points (Padraics was an absolute kip), but completely irrelevant. Sheridans could have made the building and the area into the nicest cafe society area you could ever want, but the fact is the early licence is now lost. Sheridan's have lost that licence (apparently irretrievably) and the licence itself has an intrinsic value regardless of what the clientele or the building are like. The building's owner now has a building which is less valuable due to it having lost a licence.

dolphin city

couldn't care less what padraigins had in the bar - the fact is that it had an early license that should not have been lost because they wanted to make their little expensive bar more "upmarket". You have dealers in nearly every pub in Galway I would imagine - not exclusive to Padragins and yes people do have fond memories of Padraigins - it was there for years with a lot of history. nothing to do with romantic notions - it was fact. Thats the end of them anyway.

Webbs

churchview wrote: »

Fair points (Padraics was an absolute kip), but completely irrelevant. Sheridans could have made the building and the area into the nicest cafe society area you could ever want, but the fact is the early licence is now lost. Sheridan's have lost that licence (apparently irretrievably) and the licence itself has an intrinsic value regardless of what the clientele or the building are like. The building's owner now has a building which is less valuable due to it having lost a licence.

But as McTigs pointed out it is a more valuable business due to Sheridans work they put in.
Methinks there is more to it than the early licence which has never been used since Sheridans reopened it. It (the licence) in my opinion would never be used by anyone as it would not make any business sense to open a pub for a very small clientele. It would therefore have negligible value.

The early licence was an anachronism - it hadn't been used in a year and no one seems to have missed it.

If it was part of the lease terms that it needed to be renewed then the landlord can do what he wants.

?Cee?view

Webbs wrote: »

But as McTigs pointed out it is a more valuable business due to Sheridans work they put in.
Methinks there is more to it than the early licence which has never been used since Sheridans reopened it. It (the licence) in my opinion would never be used by anyone as it would not make any business sense to open a pub for a very small clientele. It would therefore have negligible value.

I think you're missing the point. It's potentially a more valuable business, but primarily that value/goodwill attaches to the business that operates in the building as opposed to the landlord's interest. I accept that there is some crossover though.

I don't think that anyone could argue that Sheridans have left a building/place etc. that's more "pleasant" than it was as Padraicins.

The issue is that when you lease any asset, you've a duty to return it as the end of the lease in the same condition, save for normal wear and tear. In this case, it's almost like returning a building without its roof...except it's not. A roof can be replaced when the building is returned; this licence cannot be replaced as "early" licences are no longer being granted.

Pub licences have intrinsic values which is why they are specifically dealt with in the leases of pubs and why lessees such as Sheridans have positive duties under the leases to protect them.

The landlord, now has an asset (regardless of arguments as to the intangible value of improved image, clientele etc.) which is materially damaged in that a licence which is a constituent element in determining its value, is now permanently destroyed.

It'll be interesting to see if Sheridans get out of having to pony up for this. One wonders if they've structured their businesses in such a way as to avoid liability in this instance.

spender.j

As someone pointed out earlier, the early license precluded their being able to get a Sunday license. I would have thought that especially over the summer a Sunday license would be considerably more valuable, the early license would therefore only have value as an heirloom...

dolphin city

it wasn't their decision to make. At the end of the day if they got a "better offer" they could pack up and move on. The early license came as part of that building and should have been left with the building - sheridans were only thinking of themselves and more profit for themselves so they could have a sunday license. They deserve to be kicked out.

gassdfres

all they did was take out the pool table and juke box it was done up by the owner before they moved in . no body gets that lease for more than 3 years at a time. last two previous tennants 3 years also .owner of the place is sound but three years is three years.

Mrs OBumble

spender.j wrote: »

As someone pointed out earlier, the early license precluded their being able to get a Sunday license. I would have thought that especially over the summer a Sunday license would be considerably more valuable, the early license would therefore only have value as an heirloom...

Irrelevant.

They signed a lease agreeing to pay rent, and to keep the early license. They failed on both counts.

(Yer man admits in the article (maybe not the online version but I read it in print) that he was behind in the rent, and that he let the licence lapse.)

Frankly, any business that doesn't keep the basic terms of its contracts with key suppliers should be put of it's misery sooner, rather than later before they can screw around with others.