December / January 2003

Dear Editor

 The Dyke's End: a few facts!

As we approach the sale of the pub (scheduled to be anytime before  March 31st 2003) I suppose it is a little inevitable that the rumour  mill seems to have found an extra gear... and we had the  extraordinary sight of a BBC East crew departing in a huff last Thursday evening after villagers questioned their attempt to do a  hatchet job on us... so I think it is appropriate that  we publicly  put our cards firmly on the table, spell out a few facts, and discuss  matters perhaps a bit more publicly than we would normally have  chosen so to do.

Rumour 1: Bryan has resigned and Vanessa has taken over.

Answer: I haven't resigned, and we haven't got a Vanessa... what I did do was to ask Philip Lewis and Veronica Candy (both with legal experience) to oversee the creation of the 999-year lease documentation that will form the basis of the sale. This document is nearly ready.

 Rumour 2: The shareholders want to keep the freehold so they can sell it as a house and make lots of money.

Answer: The shareholders of Reach for a Pint have one aim only: securing the future of the pub... and the intention is that once a sale has been achieved, the lease will be assigned to a village body. Reach for a Pint Ltd will then quietly slip away, its job done.

 Rumour 3: Reach for a Pint Ltd is being greedy in not allowing Phil to buy the freehold.

Answer: Having fought extremely hard to win the original 'change of  use' planning battle to save the pub, the shareholders of Reach for a Pint have always had the very clearly stated objective of retaining  the freehold within a village body (discussion is on-going with the Parish Council, but it could be a specially created other entity) and selling a long leasehold. We vowed that never again would the village be put into a position of having to fight a change of use application on our pub. There is no ambiguity here: the 3 year lease that Phil currently has (which expires at the end of March) clearly states his option to buy a long-term leasehold in the property.

Given that the stakes have been ratcheted up in the last few days, I  think it is appropriate to provide a little bit more detail to the basic facts above. The 'option to buy' document included a clearly defined method of valuing the property. This was due to take place in October 2002. However to assist the process, the directors decided to undertake the valuation process in March 2002, prior to the AGM, thus hopefully allowing Phil a whole year to make the necessary arrangements rather than the planned six months. In the event we paid for a professional valuation to be undertaken and accepted un-audited n accounts from Phil's advisors (business valuations being based on financial ratio's rather than bricks and mortar).

The result was a valuation of £285 000 for the freehold, and £245 000 for a 99 year leasehold. This valuation was shared with Phil and his advisors at a b meeting held in the village prior to the AGM, which included detailed discussion of the somewhat complex tax issues involved in the process. The directors proposed that the figure be set at £225 000 for a 99 year lease. Phil and his advisors declared that it was  reasonable. At the AGM, the shareholders unanimously voted to reduce  this figure to £220 000, demonstrating very clearly their lack of  hunger for money and their finely honed dedication to good food and fine ale. We had capitalised at just under £180 000 back in early 1999.

In early October Phil and Tess spoke to a director of Reach for a Pint, and voiced a concern they had about whether they could raise the capital for a leasehold rather than the freehold. The director  suggested that a meeting should be convened between them (and their  advisors) and the company to try and resolve any problems. This they agreed would make sense. Alas in late November, despite reminders, we  are still awaiting a proposal of a date for such a meeting. In the meantime, we are aware of two people who have offered Phil the names and numbers of finance specialists, but he has declined the assistance.

That the BBC was then invited down (on Thursday 21st November) to do a hatchet job on Reach for a Pint and (and I paraphrase) 'its greediness in not allowing Phil to have the freehold, and asking for too much money anyway'  is best described as unfortunate. The producer was entirely disinterested in the facts. Freedom of speech is one thing  but in this instance they were wanting 'freedom to distort' and Keith Lambert's intervention was commendable.  Earlier in the evening I had been invited to the pub for what I understood was to be another "villagers buy pub, pub does well" story. The researcher who had visited my house three weeks earlier had certainly led me to believe such. When I arrived at the pub, there was the strange sight of a villager trying to coax Phil into saying things that I don't think he really wanted to. When he couldn't (he kept bottling it) they retreated to the back of the pub and wrote the words down, and Phil eventually read these to a microphone with no camera or lights to distract him.  The questioning I then received from the reporter was entirely hostile.

For the record. The shareholders of Reach for a Pint Ltd think Phil has done a great job in building up the business and reputation of the pub. They would like him to take it forward. If he can, great; if he has a problem, please come and talk to us and we'll see if we can help; and if he can't, just say so, there will be no hard feelings. But what I am afraid is rock solid, is the fact that the villagers fought very hard to save this pub, and worked very hard to renovate it and they are not going to let that go. The freehold is not negotiable. That was the case on day one and remains the case now. I know I speak on behalf of the vast majority of the shareholders, and quite probably, every single one of them. And if Phil and Tess don’t want to exercise their option to buy  there is an orderly queue forming of interested others, all fully aware that it is a lease not the freehold that is on offer.

The only change is that we have increased the lease from 99 years to 999 years. In the words of the MD of East Anglia's leading pub sales agency... "999 years is as good as freehold".

I trust this helps set the record straight. Ironically, last Friday morning I received an email from David Bromilow the outsider who so generously invested £75 000 in the project. His message was to accept an invitation to attend a dinner at the pub sometime in the first quarter of next year. We owe this man not only a debt of gratitude, but also a debt of responsibility. Let's draw a line under the last couple of weeks, and see if we can move forward a little more constructively in the coming weeks and months.

Bryan Pearson Chairman, Reach for a Pint Ltd

Dear Editor

Regarding the filming in the Dyke’s End on Thursday 21st November.

It started off as a very convivial evening. We were asked our feeling ad to whether the pub should stay a pub or be turned into a private dwelling.

Questions were asked about the atmosphere and the feelings of the clientele as to how they felt.

The majority of persons present felt it should stay as a pub and that it would be appropriate for Phil & Tess to keep the pub.

As most of you know Phil & Tess are having problems obtaining the money for the lease hold of the property.

The lease as such is for the pub to stay as a pub which is what everybody wants.

Comments were made that the clientele were fed questions and that persons present should not have an opinion.

Any one that uses the Dyke’s End should be able to state what their opinion is, whether it is liked or not.

The whole purpose is to state that the pub is a wonderful place and has an excellent atmosphere and welcomes all.

I hope that the clientele at the pub can give their opinions without being made to feel their opinion is of  no value and they cannot be counted.

Sue Johnson Swaffham Prior