Minimum alcohol pricing is nigh

hatrickpatrick

For those talking about how this will impact on families with alcoholism, this very clearly isn't the intended target of MUP, which is why those effects don't matter to those in power. What they're trying to target is (a) student 'session' culture (AKA binge drinking parties) and (b) pre-drinking in order to overcome ridiculous on-trade pricing, which is eating into the profits of the pubs but not the nightclubs which do promotions.

I mean, the senators basically admitted as much during the debate. More comments were made about targeting young people with slabs than about any other societal issue, this is about trying to kill off "the sesh" as a part of youth and particularly college culture. So unfortunately, arguments about how this will affect families with genuine alcoholism will probably fall on deaf ears, since they're not even thinking about those families to begin with. It's as much an attack on young peoples' stereotypical party lifestyle as it is a health bill, and those in power aren't even pretending that it isn't anymore, although they did at first.

end of the road

the one good thing about this nonsense, is that it will ultimately fail in it's objectives, and people will likely get around it.

Geuze

flutered wrote: »

sitting in a supermarket car park earlier, a publican known to me arrives out with 10 bottles of spirits and four boxes of lager, will he declare all that to the tax man, btw this guy purchases there each saturday morning

Perfectly legitimate behaviour.

If the publican can get better deals in supermarkets than from trade suppliers, then he should do so.

No tax avoidance or evasion.

It may be a bit messy dealing with reclaiming the VAT paid to the supermarket, but not illegal.

hatrickpatrick

Geuze wrote: »

Perfectly legitimate behaviour.

If the publican can get better deals in supermarkets than from trade suppliers, then he should do so.

No tax avoidance or evasion.

It may be a bit messy dealing with reclaiming the VAT paid to the supermarket, but not illegal.

Just how legal or illegal is it for a retailer to ignore the "not for individual resale" message on a slab of beers and sell them individually in their own establishment having bought them as part of a supermarket deal?

I mean enforcement is obviously almost impossible but is it even illegal to begin with?

Sofiztikated

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Just how legal or illegal is it for a retailer to ignore the "not for individual resale" message on a slab of beers and sell them individually in their own establishment having bought them as part of a supermarket deal?

I mean enforcement is obviously almost impossible but is it even illegal to begin with?

You missed the first 3 words in Geuze's post. Perfectly legitimate. The "Not for Individual Resale" has no legal standing at all. Same as something might have the RRP stamped on it, but the seller can ignore it and sell for higher or lower.

It's just manufacturer's recommendation.

hawkelady

If publicans can buy it for that price legitimately why in gods name do they sell it for huge increase in price! My local has advertising all over the place saying they sell 3 long necks for €14 !!!!

The only answer I can come up with is greed.

Sofiztikated

hawkelady wrote: »

If publicans can buy it for that price legitimately why in gods name do they sell it for huge increase in price! My local has advertising all over the place saying they sell 3 long necks for €14 !!!!

The only answer I can come up with is greed.

Wages, electricity, water, rates, license, Sky Sports subscription, glasses, washers, fruit, and on and on and on.

As well as making a profit.

No business stays in business by not making profit.

Geuze

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Just how legal or illegal is it for a retailer to ignore the "not for individual resale" message on a slab of beers and sell them individually in their own establishment having bought them as part of a supermarket deal?

I mean enforcement is obviously almost impossible but is it even illegal to begin with?

That's not a law.

That's the supplier not wanting retailers to split the packs.

No law is being broken.

Publicans are perfectly free to buy in DS, Tesco, Aldi, etc,

Now the supermarkets may not like this, and Alda and Lidl have notices on their walls saying "no trade sales".

If I was a small publican, I would be using DS Shop&Save vouchers each week to get my spirits less 20%.

Geuze

hawkelady wrote: »

If publicans can buy it for that price legitimately why in gods name do they sell it for huge increase in price! My local has advertising all over the place saying they sell 3 long necks for €14 !!!!

The only answer I can come up with is greed.

75% gross profit margins occur on many items in many trades.

A pub near me operates on a 75% gross profit margin on food.

You pay 10, they have spent 2.50 on the food cost.

Of course, they have wages, overheads and VAT to pay out of the 7.50.

hawkelady

Sofiztikated wrote: »

hawkelady wrote: »

If publicans can buy it for that price legitimately why in gods name do they sell it for huge increase in price! My local has advertising all over the place saying they sell 3 long necks for €14 !!!!

The only answer I can come up with is greed.

Wages, electricity, water, rates, license, Sky Sports subscription, glasses, washers, fruit, and on and on and on.



As well as making a profit.

No business stays in business by not making profit.

Ah I was waiting for that answer, I didn't think it would come as quick though !! The auld rates/water/bins/ lemon slices/ice answer !! Publican buys a box of Heineken in Lidl for €20, €1 per bottle ....... sells same bottle for approx €4.50. But but but, I have to make ice , have music etc. Then publican runs to the government saying we're not making money , everyone is drinking at home !! Government gets involved wanting to up prices but not in pubs mind. All under the cover of health


Sickening stuff altogether. I really hope all the greedy publicans go to the wall

Leroy42

hawkelady wrote: »

Sickening stuff altogether. I really hope all the greedy publicans go to the wall

Well it actually pretty easy to drive change here.

Many pubs are closing down and the rest would be forced to change if customers stayed away and refused to pay the prices.

That isn't happening so you can't blame the trade for trying to maximise their profits.

Sofiztikated

hawkelady wrote: »

Ah I was waiting for that answer, I didn't think it would come as quick though !! The auld rates/water/bins/ lemon slices/ice answer !! Publican buys a box of Heineken in Lidl for €20, €1 per bottle ....... sells same bottle for approx €4.50. But but but, I have to make ice , have music etc. Then publican runs to the government saying we're not making money , everyone is drinking at home !! Government gets involved wanting to up prices but not in pubs mind. All under the cover of health


Sickening stuff altogether. I really hope all the greedy publicans go to the wall

That €3.50 in "profit" also includes 94c in VAT. So that's really only €2.50 profit. Then take out all the overheads, your €2.50 quickly becomes less than €1 a bottle.

And that's IF they get it in at €20 a box, suppliers are often well above that.

I'm not a publican, nor am I disputing that pubs can be expensive, but spouting crap about "greedy publicans" without putting a bit of thought into it is moronic.

I did, however, work in a large hotel, not F&B but FO, and bottles were well north of a fiver. But you'd be surprised at how little actually goes into the "profit" section. Food and accommodation were always better earners. Then again, someone will have 10 pints before they have 5 burgers.

McMurphy

Sofiztikated wrote: »

That €3.50 in "profit" also includes 94c in VAT. So that's really only €2.50 profit. Then take out all the overheads, your €2.50 quickly becomes less than €1 a bottle.

And that's IF they get it in at €20 a box, suppliers are often well above that.

I'm not a publican, nor am I disputing that pubs can be expensive, but spouting crap about "greedy publicans" without putting a bit of thought into it is moronic.

I did, however, work in a large hotel, not F&B but FO, and bottles were well north of a fiver. But you'd be surprised at how little actually goes into the "profit" section. Food and accommodation were always better earners. Then again, someone will have 10 pints before they have 5 burgers.

Wouldn't that constitute to binge drinking? Something we're told the govt wants to end - hence the proposed legislation?

Apparently though, the gargle in the bar is happy juice. The gargle from Tesco is the devils buttermilk.

Sofiztikated

Rick Shaw wrote: »

Wouldn't that constitute to binge drinking? Something we're told the govt wants to end - hence the proposed legislation?

Apparently though, the gargle in the bar is happy juice. The gargle from Tesco is the devils buttermilk.

Oh, absolutely it would. I think the bill is bolix, protectionist nonsense.

Doesn't change the fact that without knowing the particulars, spouting "greedy publican" spiel is daft.

Every business works to profit margins, every business is designed to sell products and make money.

Leroy42

The difference is that the pub trade is a protected industry. you need a licence to get in, which are restricted and can be argued against by pubs already in the area. They also have restrictions placed on other forms of competition, of which this bill is just an example. The pub also suffers fro curtailments on its ability to trade (opening hours etc)

in normal business, every business will try to charge whatever it can get away with. But usually competition will drive the price down to an acceptable level. If that price is higher than the consumer is willing to pay the business is forced to either reduce costs to allow it lower its price or go out of business.

It is clear that the pub trade has suffered a reduction in trade over the last number of years and this bill is designed to cut off one source of the perceived reasons for this without forcing the trade to look at itself and effect change.

Discodog

Tesco are thankfully doing their bit. 24 cans of Heineken for €25

end of the road

okay, hold on.
if publicans are buying from the super market, they will have to pay the higher prices with this minimum pricing nonsense. so then they will have to charge higher prices surely.
so then, it stands to reason that this won't bring any benefit to the pubs, as it's not going to bring in new custom to them, and some of it's old custom will find it cheaper to drink at home, so will do so.
so therefore the government are extremily thick and gullible, or i'm missing something.

Leroy42

end of the road wrote: »

okay, hold on.
if publicans are buying from the super market, they will have to pay the higher prices with this minimum pricing nonsense. so then they will have to charge higher prices surely.
so then, it stands to reason that this won't bring any benefit to the pubs, as it's not going to bring in new custom to them, and some of it's old custom will find it cheaper to drink at home, so will do so.
so therefore the government are extremily thick and gullible, or i'm missing something.

Pubs are not "supposed" to be buying from the supermarkets, they should be going direct to the breweries. I would wager (but maybe others could give the facts) that only some of the purchases are done this way, to supplement the profits from the brewery sourced products.

If that is the base, then yes it would lead to higher costs but only for a portion of the products and the offset is that they are hoping that the narrowing of the price difference will lead to more customers opting for the pub.

Since MUP will effectively see the end of the non brands, this would get the likes of Diageo and Henekin an large increase in volume together with an increase in price. I am sure that they can distribute at least some of this windfall back to the pubs through pricing.

ohnonotgmail

Leroy42 wrote: »

Pubs are not "supposed" to be buying from the supermarkets, they should be going direct to the breweries. I would wager (but maybe others could give the facts) that only some of the purchases are done this way, to supplement the profits from the brewery sourced products.

If that is the base, then yes it would lead to higher costs but only for a portion of the products and the offset is that they are hoping that the narrowing of the price difference will lead to more customers opting for the pub.

Since MUP will effectively see the end of the non brands, this would get the likes of Diageo and Henekin an large increase in volume together with an increase in price. I am sure that they can distribute at least some of this windfall back to the pubs through pricing.

that is one of the funniest things i have read on boards in a very long time.

Leroy42

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

that is one of the funniest things i have read on boards in a very long time.

Why? There is going to be a fight over this windfall.

ohnonotgmail

Leroy42 wrote: »

Why? There is going to be a fight over this windfall.

you think the distributors are going to hand it to publicans?

Leroy42

Of course not, but neither do I think the publicans are simply going to let them have free money. How good they are at getting it is up to them.

As the story points out, at present supermarkets can get the product cheaper than a pub. All publicans will be looking at MUP less a margin at the very least. At the very least, when the sales guy comes around they will look for additional margin knowing that it is available.

If they don't get it then they do really need to start to look at the alternatives. There is little point complaining, and this goes for consumers as much as pubs, when you do nothing about it.

The big rise in craft beers, and the success of the likes of Porterhouse and Witherspoons, shows that Irish are not as wedded to the usual brands as is made out. I think a lot of it is simply due to it being there.

Geuze

Sofiztikated wrote: »

That €3.50 in "profit" also includes 94c in VAT. So that's really only €2.50 profit. Then take out all the overheads, your €2.50 quickly becomes less than €1 a bottle.

450 selling price less 23% VAT means 366 net.

84 cent VAT.

Plus we should deduct VAT from the purchase price.

If as publican can buy 33cl bottles at 1.00, then the true cost is:

81 cent.

elperello

I never had anything against publicans.

If they didn't bother me I wouldn't bother them.

The trouble is that both the VFI (country publicans association) and the LVA (Dublin publicans association) have actively lobbied in favour of Minimum Unit Pricing.

Now I find myself in conflict with a group of people to whom I bore no animosity.

They should have stuck to their trade and concentrated on making their business'es successful and attractive to customers.

ps. the Off licence owners also lobbied for Minimum Unit Pricing

Shelflife

Geuze wrote: »

450 selling price less 23% VAT means 366 net.

84 cent VAT.

Plus we should deduct VAT from the purchase price.

If as publican can buy 33cl bottles at 1.00, then the true cost is:

81 cent.

Just to clarify that the supermarket that the pubs buy their alcohol from also have to pay lights, rates, Insurance, wages etc same as the pubs.

Checkmate19

This bill is trying to pushed through as a health bill. The pub industry has had it to good for too long. People are drinking less and less in pubs. Pubs should move with the times. But they won't. So they lobby for this bill. This is all about getting people to drink more in pubs and less at home. It's nothing to do with health. We already have one of the highest drink prices in europe. Also drinking as a whole over the last ten years is coming down.

I have said before if they really wanted to do something stop letting drink being associated with major sporting events. Stop tv ads etc. But that won't happen as it would step on to many toes. FG are doing this to protect mates in the pub industry thats all and if there's an election the first one to arrive on my doorstep will be told this. Absolute nanny state stuff.

jasper100

Sofiztikated wrote: »

That €3.50 in "profit" also includes 94c in VAT. So that's really only €2.50 profit. Then take out all the overheads, your €2.50 quickly becomes less than €1 a bottle.

And that's IF they get it in at €20 a box, suppliers are often well above that.

I'm not a publican, nor am I disputing that pubs can be expensive, but spouting crap about "greedy publicans" without putting a bit of thought into it is moronic.

I did, however, work in a large hotel, not F&B but FO, and bottles were well north of a fiver. But you'd be surprised at how little actually goes into the "profit" section. Food and accommodation were always better earners. Then again, someone will have 10 pints before they have 5 burgers.

And the €1 "profit" is taxed at over 50%. Clearly a lot of people have no concept of what it costs to run a business and think its all gravy.

There is nothing to stop anybody on here leasing a pub and making loads of this greedy profit they seem to think is available.

Leroy42

jasper100 wrote: »

And the €1 "profit" is taxed at over 50%. Clearly a lot of people have no concept of what it costs to run a business and think its all gravy.

There is nothing to stop anybody on here leasing a pub and making loads of this greedy profit they seem to think is available.

Well there is though isn't there. You need to get a licence that already exists and as such you will need to pay the high price of the licence. Many pubs have been pubs for years and as such the cost of the licence is non existent. It is a form of entry control.

But even with this high cost of entry there are new pubs opening and surviving.

no one is saying that everything is easy for pubs, you only have to look at the number of them that are closing to realise that there is clearly an issue. The greediness claim comes from the lack of any movement to react to the changing market in the manner that normal businesses would, ie by dropping prices.

But every business has its struggles, but many of them don't have government legislation in order to reduce the effects of competition.

Go and ask the pubs, what have they done to demand lower prices from the brewers? Have they passed on the savings they get from low price supermarket alcohol. What did they do with the VAT reduction in food?

TheChizler

Checkmate19 wrote: »

I have said before if they really wanted to do something stop letting drink being associated with major sporting events. Stop tv ads etc. But that won't happen as it would step on to many toes. FG are doing this to protect mates in the pub industry thats all and if there's an election the first one to arrive on my doorstep will be told this. Absolute nanny state stuff.

http://health.gov.ie/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/PHAB-2015-as-published.pdf wrote:

Restriction on advertising during events
14. (1) During a sports event a person shall not advertise, or cause to be advertised, an
alcohol product in or on a sports area.
(2) Subject to subsection (3), nothing in subsection (1) shall be construed as prohibiting,
during a sports event, a person in or on a sports area from wearing clothing containing
the name, trademark or logo of any brand of alcohol product.
(3) A person shall not advertise, or cause to be advertised, an alcohol product—
(a) at an event aimed particularly at children, or
(b) at an event in relation to which the majority of participants or competitors are
children.
(4) A person who contravenes subsection (1) or (3) shall be guilty of an offence.
(5) In this section “sports area” means an area, whether indoors or outdoors, where
participants participate in sporting activities, or competitors compete in sporting
competitions, and includes a playing pitch or area, a swimming pool, an athletics
track, a dog or horse racing track or a motor racing track.

Not quite TV ads but it's a start.

jasper100

Shelflife wrote: »

Just to clarify that the supermarket that the pubs buy their alcohol from also have to pay lights, rates, Insurance, wages etc same as the pubs.

Its not the same though. Supermarkets use cheap alcohol to entice people in to buy groceries where they make their fatter profits. They use alcohol as a loss leader.