"sbillings":3krojqbk wrote: I don't think you have to extinguish an existing beer off-licence to set up a new one, like you do a pub licence, but I could be wrong.
Can't find the damn email with info. Infuriating.[/quote:3krojqbk]
AFAIK you do. But again, don't quote me. Up until recently you had the situation where the likes of Dunnes etc. would buy up the one remaining village pub, close it down and transfer the licence to their off-licence. Perhaps this was all hear-say, and I've totally the wrong end of the stick.
Most of my 'info' is based on idle gossip, I should add (get-out clause!).
"noby":80getxnz wrote: Up until recently you had the situation where the likes of Dunnes etc. would buy up the one remaining village pub, close it down and transfer the licence to their off-licence.[/quote:80getxnz]
I doubt that, as they are actually different licences.
"sbillings":b23zku2m wrote: Interestingly enough, the actual charge for a pub licence is quite cheap too. It's the cost of extinguishing an existing licence that bumps it up. I don't think you have to extinguish an existing beer off-licence to set up a new one, like you do a pub licence, but I could be wrong.[/quote:b23zku2m]
It's the same situation that we had before deregulation of the taxi market, where to drive a taxi you had to spend c. €80,000 to buy one of the existing taxi licences as there was only a finite amount, now that that restriction is lifted the price is now about €1000 direct from the regulator. Now we have a much better taxi service, with much greater availability of taxis, the queues aren't three hours long anymore and the taxis have to cater for the customer as opposed to the opposite way that it was previously, and the creation of many more jobs.
The annoying part is how artificial the cost is. If you listen to the LVA, one of their contentions is that you shouldn't remove the licence restriction as there are so many barriers to entry already that one more shouldn't matter, which is obviously complete shite. The opposite contention is true, that if there are already so many barriers to entry, then removal of the most artificial of them shouldn't matter. There are very few other industries in the country that are so well protected from new competition than the publicans.
We've seen no shift on this policy from our current government, who will invariably describe themselves as pro-competition or pro-consumer.
"Poc":2pew7ja5 wrote: We've seen no shift on this policy from our current government, who will invariably describe themselves as pro-competition or pro-consumer [i:2pew7ja5][b:2pew7ja5]or publican.[/b:2pew7ja5][/i:2pew7ja5][/quote:2pew7ja5]
Sorry you left out 2 words, I added them for you
"noby":2t23wtym wrote: Up until recently you had the situation where the likes of Dunnes etc. would buy up the one remaining village pub, close it down and transfer the licence to their off-licence.[/quote:2t23wtym]
I doubt that, as they are actually different licences.[/quote:2t23wtym]
They are, but a pub licence covers on and off sales, so can be used for an off-licence.
