is the sam smith style spreading through yorkshire?

[pegandtap]

I have no idea which brewery it is, or which breweries use managers, but breweries with their own pubs in Yorkshire include;

Old Mill (Snaith)
Theakstons
Timothy Taylor
Oakwell

[pegandtap]

Oakwell Brewery. Barnsley - 30 pubs - all managed.
RBNB run the pubs and the brewery supplies two strengths of lager, Oakwell and Acorn, Barnsley bitter and Old Tom mild.

[pegandtap]

Talk about going off on a tanchent what has this got to do with sam smith ?

This entire thread is about another company whose management style is similar to that of Sam Smiths, so it's hardly going off on a tangent.


thank you on the drink. brewery now named. pegandtap.

[bigjim]

RBNB Oakwell Brewery Barnsley - a private unlimited company that admits to 30 community pubs in Nottingham, Mansfield, Birmingham, Leicester, Manchester, Liverpool, Southport, Carlisle, Horncastle, Telford, Droitwhich, Crewe and Flint.

It would seem that the shareholders/beneficial owners are particularly shy and readers of this site might find a case that came before the House of Lords in 2002 particularly interesting. Regina v Warrington Crown Court Chief Constable of Cheshire Constabulary ex parte RBNB (a company) (respondents) 20th June 2002 UKHL24

Amongst other things it seems that the shareholders are indeed so shy that, having purchased 38 pubs from Greenalls with the assistance of the Nat West Bank, 9 subsequently closed rather than face licence revocation for refusing to disclose beneficial ownership to the Licencing Authority.

The Managing Director at the time was stated to be Mr Walsh, assisted by another Director, Mr Fisher, a solicitor. Mr Walsh said he had known the two shareholders for 30 years.

I quote from the judgement:-

"Mr Walsh in his charming way makes it very clear that he will respect the privacy of his shareholders to the utmost. He informs us that they are men of wealth, though will not divulge their line of business, but they are not involved in anything illegal and relies upon the backing of the NatWest as indicative of the fact that the men must be of integrity. He has no formal contract of employment, merely employed upon a handshake. He agrees that the shareholders decide if he remains in position."

It was explained to the House that "the two shares in RBNB were held through a series of companies in such a way that the identity of the shareholders was not publicly ascertainable."

Does any of this sound familiar.................?

See judgement:-

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200102/ldjudgmt/jd020620/wngton-1.htm

 

[OnTheDrink]

RBNB Oakwell Brewery Barnsley - a private unlimited company that admits to 30 community pubs in Nottingham, Mansfield, Birmingham, Leicester, Manchester, Liverpool, Southport, Carlisle, Horncastle, Telford, Droitwhich, Crewe and Flint.

It would seem that the shareholders/beneficial owners are particularly shy and readers of this site might find a case that came before the House of Lords in 2002 particularly interesting. Regina v Warrington Crown Court Chief Constable of Cheshire Constabulary ex parte RBNB (a company) (respondents) 20th June 2002 UKHL24

Amongst other things it seems that the shareholders are indeed so shy that, having purchased 38 pubs from Greenalls with the assistance of the Nat West Bank, 9 subsequently closed rather than face licence revocation for refusing to disclose beneficial ownership to the Licencing Authority.

The Managing Director at the time was stated to be Mr Walsh, assisted by another Director, Mr Fisher, a solicitor. Mr Walsh said he had known the two shareholders for 30 years.

I quote from the judgement:-

"Mr Walsh in his charming way makes it very clear that he will respect the privacy of his shareholders to the utmost. He informs us that they are men of wealth, though will not divulge their line of business, but they are not involved in anything illegal and relies upon the backing of the NatWest as indicative of the fact that the men must be of integrity. He has no formal contract of employment, merely employed upon a handshake. He agrees that the shareholders decide if he remains in position."

It was explained to the House that "the two shares in RBNB were held through a series of companies in such a way that the identity of the shareholders was not publicly ascertainable."

Does any of this sound familiar.................?

Not really! There's no secret about the shareholding of Hump and Oliver and they do comply with all the reporting requirements of a private unlimited company. The fact that they have multiple nested subsidiary companies still doesn't affect that as they all have the same ultimate parent company, and shareholders. The problem with this RBNB is that they refused disclosure when they had no right to do so under the licensing act.

[bigjim]

OnTheDrink,

You say there's no secret to Humphrey and Olivers shareholdings? Well I find that somewhat difficult to accept given the extraordinary lengths they obviously go to in hiding their interests and wealth. But, I'm only a very disgruntled customer and if there is no secret, then could you possibly save some of us a great deal of time and trouble and kindly post the details of their shareholdings? As far as I'm aware, nobody has mentioned before that they might own this brewery - or have I missed something?

Cheers

[OnTheDrink]

OnTheDrink,

You say there's no secret to Humphrey and Olivers shareholdings? Well I find that somewhat difficult to accept given the extraordinary lengths they obviously go to in hiding their interests and wealth. But, I'm only a very disgruntled customer and if there is no secret, then could you possibly save some of us a great deal of time and trouble and kindly post the details of their shareholdings? As far as I'm aware, nobody has mentioned before that they might own this brewery - or have I missed something?

Cheers

Indeed you have missed something, so spare me the sarcasm!

The shareholders in Samuel Smith Old Brewery (Tadcaster) Ltd are seven Trust funds set up with Hump (four funds) and Oliver (three funds) as beneficiaries. There are 1885972 Ordinary Voting shares (which have no nominal value) split equally between Hump (Chairman) and Oliver (Joint MD) but with varying quantities in the trusts. There is no doubt at all about who owns the brewery but needless to say there is a great deal of doubt about how much those shares are worth and I wouldn't be at all surprised if they were north of ?50 each, but as they aren't traded the only current tangible value to them will be the net worth of the company divided by the number of shares. That value would increase dramatically if the company were put up for sale, but as the shares are held in trust I can't see that happening and I would imagine that the trusts will fall to the male heirs of Hump and Oliver should either of them pop their clogs and would remain in trust.

[bigjim]

OnTheDrink

Thank goodness somebody has at last started to explain things - if you think I've missed something - please point out where it was posted on here.

Unless you can point us in the appropriate direction, I don't believe any of the information you have posted is in the public domain. You don't mention RBNB - which is what I think this thread started out alluding to - who do you understand the beneficial owners to be?

Cheers

[OnTheDrink]

OnTheDrink

Thank goodness somebody has at last started to explain things - if you think I've missed something - please point out where it was posted on here.

Unless you can point us in the appropriate direction, I don't believe any of the information you have posted is in the public domain. You don't mention RBNB - which is what I think this thread started out alluding to - who do you understand the beneficial owners to be?

Cheers

All the info is held at companies house - you just have to know which reports are needed!  Re RBNB, the sole Director - Neil Walsh - was replaced by on Mrs Lynne Booth on 29/10/09. The sole shareholder is a limited company called Testrill Securities and after that the trail goes cold because that's owned by more limited companies. Dodgy, but legal, except if the licensing authority wants to know who's really in charge.

[bigjim]

It feels like treading treacle, but I think we are left pondering who the beneficial owners of RBNB are - and in considering that, as I said, reflecting on anything sounding familiar?

A secretive private company
Initial shareholders said to be two men
No website
No advertising
Unlimited funding for legal cases
Closure of pubs but no disposal 

[pegandtap]

neil walsh resigned from rbnb in oct 09. new M.D. is Ms Lynne Booth who took over november 2009. Mr Walsh always supported hard working and loyal staff though he had no time for non-tryers. He was very firm with managers but also extremely fair. Managers were encouraged to do the job they were paid for (building good reliable trade) and those who were successful, he supported to the hilt. Those who struggled were given every opportunity to improve. Since his departure things have become unbearable. The slashing of opening times, vast reduction in authorised bar staff levels no matter how successful the pub. All blamed on 'the shareholders' who the employees have no clue to their identity and have no way of pleading their case to. I have advised my friend in this company to seek union advice.

[bigjim]

So it looks like we do indeed have another privately owned pub company that seems to be introducing the same business practices as Sam Smiths.

I wonder if it's just a coincidence, but this is happening after a change of MD last November. Now in the House of Lords case, the former MD was quoted as saying he would not brook any interference in the running of the company by the shareholders - and indeed would resign if they sought to do so and furthermore he would undertake to inform the Police Authority at the very least if he resigned or if his employment was terminated by the shareholders.

This was all said in order to try and convince the House of Lords that it was not necessary to know who the ultimate beneficial owners are in order to make a judgement in relation to the granting of pub licences. So, some eight years on and with a change in licencing legislation, does that mean the Licencing Authorities - or more specifically the relevant Police Authority - are still happy not knowing who really owns the company RBNB? By the way it looks like Oakwell Brewery is run by another private company, RBNBC.

[pegandtap]

I know of RBNBC also. I feel so sad for my friends as they have worked hard to build trade. I have been informed that one pub alone stands to lose several thousand pounds worth of trade just through the shortening of trading hours. These are loyal customers who have been treated well and given top class service and good quality beers at low prices. Now the company is virtually saying that well known drinking up adage 'we've had your money - now p**s off'. One of the reasons given was that they have to comply with the national minimum wage. Then they were told that the shareholders were demanding a huge cut in the wages bill. So why are they trashing the pubs making money and not concentrating on the hours of the pubs that are taking none? A busy pub with the correct amount of bar staff hours means that the managers would not have to exceed their hours. Make a nice profit and have happy staff, managers and customers - why change that. I could not believe what I was being told about all this until I was shown the proof. It all beggars belief. What kind of investors turn away income in todays climate?

[bigjim]

It all beggars belief. What kind of investors turn away income in todays climate?

Well guys - what do we think the answer to the question is? What kind of investors can they be? Who can they be?

[JettaP]

Maybe a job for the journalist who did the Yorkshire TV programme on Tadcaster and Sam Smiths?
Anybody got his contact details?