Bewleys set to close

Muahahaha

Sad to hear about this and the loss of 110 jobs. Landlord Johnny Ronan would not drop the rent of 30,000 per week so they are closing permanently. Not sure what will become of it now, probably another British high street clothes store

Social distancing measures once it reopened later in the summer would have forced the cafe to reduce its capacity, Mr Campbell said.

As a result, it was facing a significant loss of revenue compared to the level it had previously been trading at, he claimed.

The café's premises is leased and the company was paying almost €1.5m a year in rent to Ronan Group Real Estate, the firm owned by developer Johnny Ronan.

In 2012 an independent arbitrator had recommended that the rent be cut to €728,000.

However, that proposal was not accepted by the landlord, which later won a Supreme Court action aimed at overturning a High Court ruling that found the rent should be halved.

https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2020/0506/1136899-bewleys-grafton-street/

Caranica

It's a protected structure afaik so going to be difficult to do a lot with it.

It's sad but at the same time the prices in there were ridiculous.

Someone has set up an online petition, for all the good it will do http://chng.it/sDRzCVhYQY

yourdeadwright

Caranica wrote: »

It's a protected structure afaik so going to be difficult to do a lot with it.

It's sad but at the same time the prices in there were ridiculous.

Someone has set up an online petition, for all the good it will do http://chng.it/sDRzCVhYQY

With the rent at 1.5 million a year prices had to be high,
I think its an awful shame if it goes ,

Doop

3.....2.......1.......Starbucks

Very sad... didn't realise the Ronan Group owned it... they obv have limited social/cultural conscience, I understand they're all out to make money but its not as if the Ronan Group is struggling.

Nunu

They were hardly making anywhere near €30,000 a week to cover just the rent alone were they?!

imme

Doop wrote: »

3.....2.......1.......Starbucks

Very sad... didn't realise the Ronan Group owned it... they obv have limited social/cultural conscience, I understand they're all out to make money but its not as if the Ronan Group is struggling.

The name lives on in their coffee and other products.

A pity that the building as we know it is gone, no one else could make a go of running a cafe with rent of €1.5m it seems.

How long has Ronan owned the building does anyone know.

A Starbucks, I feel sick.

imme

We've been here a couple of times already (from 2004):

https://www.rte.ie/archives/2019/1101/1087992-bewleys-cafes-close/

L1011

Caranica wrote: »

Campbell Catering have Starbucks already, as well as Bewleys?

Campbell Catering have neither


Starbucks in Ireland is Entertainment Enterprises - Leisureplex, Dantes, TGI Fridays, Maos, Hard Rock Cafe.

Campbell Catering was sold to Aramak but notably *excluding* Bewleys, both retail and wholesale; the Campbell family kept it.

Boulevardier

Garrett Fitzgerald nationalised Bewley's back in the 1980s thus giving it a lifeline until it was re-sold. I wonder if this should be done again?

Boulevardier

Boulevardier wrote: »

Garrett Fitzgerald nationalised Bewley's back in the 1980s thus giving it a lifeline until it was re-sold. I wonder if this should be done again?

It should, as an icon of Dublin. It’s like as if Harrod’s in London was turned into a TK Maxx or whatever. There’s the infrastructure, the Harry Clarke glass. Compulsory purchase and turn it into part of the National Museum, maybe culinary history, with coffees & sticky buns served.

Boulevardier

Another thought: Why are landlords of the type who rent to Bewley's apparently happy to risk a period of several months with no rent coming in from their properties, rather than show some flexibility with existing tenants?

I wonder if there is some legal or tax incentive for them to behave like this? If so, we should be told what it is.

Boulevardier

Boulevardier wrote: »

Another thought: Why are landlords of the type who rent to Bewley's apparently happy to risk a period of several months with no rent coming in from their properties, rather than show some flexibility with existing tenants?

I wonder if there is some legal or tax incentive for them to behave like this? If so, we should be told what it is.

I had it with a company I worked for. Owners sold the company and built them a new factory.
When the company went into examiner ship they looked for a rent reduction and were told no.
80 jobs were gone that night.

Boulevardier

Boulevardier wrote: »

Another thought: Why are landlords of the type who rent to Bewley's apparently happy to risk a period of several months with no rent coming in from their properties, rather than show some flexibility with existing tenants?

I wonder if there is some legal or tax incentive for them to behave like this? If so, we should be told what it is.

Quite often, there are break clauses and rent reviews built into long term commercial leases. If they are far enough away from a rent review, and the property is leased for less than market rent, it could be more profitable to boot the tenant out and relet it to someone else for 40k a week.

Not saying that's the case here, I'm not familiar with the specifics.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It should, as an icon of Dublin. It’s like as if Harrod’s in London was turned into a TK Maxx or whatever. There’s the infrastructure, the Harry Clarke glass. Compulsory purchase and turn it into part of the National Museum, maybe culinary history, with coffees & sticky buns served.

Not sure if you're serious or not, but, out of curiosity, when's the last time you set foot in / purchased anything in Bewleys?

extra gravy

Nunu wrote: »

They were hardly making anywhere near €30,000 a week to cover just the rent alone were they?!

6.50 for a hot chocolate I remember... God knows how much a sandwich was. There were plenty of gullible tourists around to keep them going.

WoollyRedHat

Jonny Ronan is an absolute charlatan, a toxic stain that should of been kept in liquidation.

Dubmany

Bewleys in some ways is similar to Clery's, two iconic Dublin establishments that people talked warmly about but rarely frequented. Even without the Covid-19 crisis and the high rent, I think its time would have been limited.

mickdw

Id bet good money it will be trading later this year with the same branding over the door.

Goldengirl

mickdw wrote: »

Id bet good money it will be trading later this year with the same branding over the door.

Starbucks @ Bewley's Grafton St. ?

Dubmany

Dubmany wrote: »

Bewleys in some ways is similar to Clery's, two iconic Dublin establishments that people talked warmly about but rarely frequented. Even without the Covid-19 crisis and the high rent, I think its time would have been limited.

And the very same reason why there will never ever be an Apple Store in Grafton Street.

Peregrinus

Boulevardier wrote: »

Another thought: Why are landlords of the type who rent to Bewley's apparently happy to risk a period of several months with no rent coming in from their properties, rather than show some flexibility with existing tenants?

I wonder if there is some legal or tax incentive for them to behave like this? If so, we should be told what it is.

Even in normal conditions, Bewley's in Grafton Street traded at a loss. A coffee shop, however upmarket, simply doesn't generate the revenue need to pay rents at Grafton Street levels on a premises of that size. The Grafton St cafe was being cross-subsided by the rest of the Bewley's operation.

In these circumstances, you don't need "legal or tax incentives" to make the landlord reluctant to grant a rent reduction or a rent holiday; simple common sense will do it. There is no foreseeable time when trading conditions in Bewley's in Grafton St will reach a point where the cafe can pay the market rent; it has to be subsidised from somewhere. And, the landlord will reason, if the wider Bewley's group is no longer willing to subsidise Bewley's Grafton Street, why should we be? For obvious reasons, the landlord's natural preference is to let the premises to a tenant whose business can support the market rent; the landlord has no economic incentive to subsidise a less secure tenant to remain on in the premises.

It's a shame, but I don't think the landlord is to blame.

BillyBiggs

Hard to see anybody renting it in the next 6-8 months. The doorway will make a nice bed for somebody.

Pawwed Rig

Peregrinus wrote: »

It's a shame, but I don't think the landlord is to blame.

There is a cohort that will always blame landlords. They are the easiest target and will usually be called 'greedy' for accepting the market rent on a property

BillyBiggs

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

There is a cohort that will always blame landlords. They are the easiest target and will usually be called 'greedy' for accepting the market rent on a property

I’d like to see them try get the “market rent” for it now.

Pawwed Rig

BillyBiggs wrote: »

I’d like to see them try get the “market rent” for it now.

Well that is the point. The next tenant WILL pay the market rent.

Darc19

Boulevardier wrote: »

Another thought: Why are landlords of the type who rent to Bewley's apparently happy to risk a period of several months with no rent coming in from their properties, rather than show some flexibility with existing tenants?

I wonder if there is some legal or tax incentive for them to behave like this? If so, we should be told what it is.

None whatsoever.

The business lost €1.5m last year, so if the rent was free it would still not be profitable.

Basically the business itself failed and was unable to pay the rent.

L1011

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Well that is the point. The next tenant WILL pay the market rent.

Its almost definite that the market rent for a protected cafe that can't be used for anything other than a cafe is a lot less than 1.5m

Peregrinus

L1011 wrote: »

Its almost definite that the market rent for a protected cafe that can't be used for anything other than a cafe is a lot less than 1.5m

SFAIK it can be used for purposes other than a cafe, so long as the listed elements of the structure are retained.

It could be a restaurant, for example. Perhaps quite a high-end one. And I dare say it could be adapted as a luxury goods outlet without too much problem.

Del2005

Peregrinus wrote: »

SFAIK it can be used for purposes other than a cafe, so long as the listed elements of the structure are retained.

It could be a restaurant, for example. Perhaps quite a high-end one. And I dare say it could be adapted as a luxury goods outlet without too much problem.

Until social distancing is removed no one will be taking on any new restaurant or cafe venture and a lot more won't be reopening. The margins are tiny in food and loosing half, at best, seating capacity makes them not viable

rolling boh

Unless Bewleys actually owned the premises not a hope it could trade profitable. Too much competition and steep prices made this inevitable not the first time unfortunately. The videos of Johnny Ronan down in South Africa also do him no favours in a lot of people eyes of course .

Loozer

Is the turnover figures available for Grafton st branch

L1011

Peregrinus wrote: »

SFAIK it can be used for purposes other than a cafe, so long as the listed elements of the structure are retained.

It could be a restaurant, for example. Perhaps quite a high-end one. And I dare say it could be adapted as a luxury goods outlet without too much problem.

There's two things here - other uses won't breach the protected structure rules if done right; but the city development plan has it restricted to a cafe so change of use wouldn't get through.

No restaurant could pay 1.5m rent either. Even some of the larger stores on Grafton Street are "only" paying 750k going on the commercial lease register

Loozer

It's worth a good bit in advertising value to have the flagship store even if it's losing money

Peregrinus

Loozer wrote: »

It's worth a good bit in advertising value to have the flagship store even if it's losing money

Which presumably is why they maintained it for so long. But if Bewleys have now made the decision that it isn't worth it to them for advertising value, it seems unreasonably to demand that the landlord, in effect, pay for the advertising that they decide not to pay for themselves.

L1011

Peregrinus wrote: »

Which presumably is why they maintained it for so long. But if Bewleys have now made the decision that it isn't worth it to them for advertising value, it seems unreasonably to demand that the landlord, in effect, pay for the advertising that they decide not to pay for themselves.

They asked the landlord to reduce the rent to market rates, which were decided by a tribunal and were around half of the passing rent. That's what they asked for.

dr.kenneth noisewater

Went once last year and the food and service was terrible and it was very overpriced. Most I know who went in the past few years thought the same. Sad for those to lose their jobs but dont think it would have lasted long term regardless of Covid

yourdeadwright

Darc19 wrote: »

None whatsoever.

The business lost €1.5m last year, so if the rent was free it would still not be profitable.

Basically the business itself failed and was unable to pay the rent.

It has always ran at a loss that the rest of the Bewleys business ventures where able to cover ,

They knew the Grafton street business would never turn profit but it helped them generate more business else where for there brand due to the prestige of having it .

I guess it just gone to far into the red for that to even make sense anymore

Hurrache

While the building itself is great, Bewleys is not. The services/food it provides has been stagnant since the 80s. Last time I was there was early 2000s when meeting someone for dinner and I've never been back.

Despite all the nostalgia (and a lot of it is along the lines of 'oh I meet my friends there once a year at Christmas, I'm so upset it's gone') it has little draw to it.

The bricks and mortar is its unique selling point, I've never seen a reason to go there for any sort of dining experience.

Wheety

Goldengirl wrote: »

Starbucks @ Bewley's Grafton St. ?

Yup. They did similar on Westmoreland Street.

Although I think it's now a a TGI Fridays.

Pawwed Rig

L1011 wrote: »

Its almost definite that the market rent for a protected cafe that can't be used for anything other than a cafe is a lot less than 1.5m

Why did Bewleys pay it then? Are you trying to say the Bewleys gave Jonny Ronan extra cash on top of rent for a laugh?
The fact that the money was paid on an arms length basis between two willing parties is the definition of market rates.

L1011

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Why did Bewleys pay it then? Are you trying to say the Bewleys gave Jonny Ronan extra cash on top of rent for a laugh?
The fact that the money was paid on an arms length basis between two willing parties is the definition of market rates.

The rent was a pre-crash rent. Then the crash happened. Ronan was quite involved in that, as you may be aware

Basically everyone else on Grafton Street managed to rebase rents to reflect this, even McDonalds. Ronan fought it all the way to the Supreme Court however.

So they're paying a pre-crash rent on a street where rental values have never recovered to that level; and which is facing multiple retail vacancies by the time shops reopen (Cath Kidson already gone, Oasis around the corner on SSG also)

Look at recent leases on Grafton Street on the lease register - there is not a hope in hell of Ronan acheiving the same rent or even anything close to it on what is an exceptionally restrictive unit - listed and restricted to cafe use in the city development plan.

The idea bounced around that Starbucks, who have closed multiple units in the south city centre in recent years and are part of a group that is basically not trading at the moment, could afford to take it over is laughable.

swarlb

Evil Johnny Rohan... sitting in some squalid cave counting his cash...:rolleyes:

Ye know, I'm an aul fella... born in the 50's... in James' Street, and lived in Dublin for most of my adult life.... worked in the Dandelion Market till the 'evil developers' tore it down and built that monstrosity at the top of Grafton Street.
Then there was McBirneys.... evil Virgin man came in and turned it into a record shop

2 places I've never been to in Dublin, Croke Park and Bewleys, and the chances are, I'll never get to them.

mickdw

L1011 wrote: »

The rent was a pre-crash rent. Then the crash happened. Ronan was quite involved in that, as you may be aware

Basically everyone else on Grafton Street managed to rebase rents to reflect this, even McDonalds. Ronan fought it all the way to the Supreme Court however.

So they're paying a pre-crash rent on a street where rental values have never recovered to that level; and which is facing multiple retail vacancies by the time shops reopen (Cath Kidson already gone, Oasis around the corner on SSG also)

Look at recent leases on Grafton Street on the lease register - there is not a hope in hell of Ronan acheiving the same rent or even anything close to it on what is an exceptionally restrictive unit - listed and restricted to cafe use in the city development plan.

The idea bounced around that Starbucks, who have closed multiple units in the south city centre in recent years and are part of a group that is basically not trading at the moment, could afford to take it over is laughable.

Why would they continue to pay it if not sustainable. Surely every lease is open to review by both parties at certain time periods.

yourdeadwright

mickdw wrote: »

Why would they continue to pay it if not sustainable. Surely every lease is open to review by both parties at certain time periods.

As having the premises in Grafton street means a lot to there business its great for there brand and it makes them money else where ,
Basically it adds value to there brand (even if café loses money on the actually premises )

The money lost on it is covered by other parts of Bewleys

K.O.Kiki

Hurrache wrote: »

While the building itself is great, Bewleys is not. The services/food it provides has been stagnant since the 80s. Last time I was there was early 2000s when meeting someone for dinner and I've never been back.

Despite all the nostalgia (and a lot of it is along the lines of 'oh I meet my friends there once a year at Christmas, I'm so upset it's gone') it has little draw to it.

The bricks and mortar is its unique selling point, I've never seen a reason to go there for any sort of dining experience.

Why do you think your opinion means anything when you haven't been to a business in over a decade & after a management change?

Hurrache

Because I'm a member of the public, and a potential customer, with many colleagues and friends, all potential customers, who reads a lot of social media, involving a lot of potential customers, and yet to have anyone recommend I go there for lunch, dinner etc over any of the other large amounts of premises around the area.

And it's obviously not unique to me.

L1011

mickdw wrote: »

Why would they continue to pay it if not sustainable. Surely every lease is open to review by both parties at certain time periods.

Leases of that period generally had upward-only reviews and may not have had break clauses. For that was Tiger era Ireland.

expectationlost

does he want to change planning for it to be a pub?

Muahahaha

Deleted User wrote: »

And the very same reason why there will never ever be an Apple Store in Grafton Street.

Arent CompuB still on Grafton Street, AFAIK they only sell Apple products

L1011 wrote: »

Look at recent leases on Grafton Street on the lease register - there is not a hope in hell of Ronan acheiving the same rent or even anything close to it on what is an exceptionally restrictive unit - listed and restricted to cafe use in the city development plan.

Yeah you'd wonder whats Ronans game is here. Given he would have to apply for change of use planning permission that would be likely refused surely he is just making his own asset devalue? What other coffee chain is going to pay 1.5m a year in rent, none I would say. The rent is just too high for a coffee shop to make money there yet thats all the building can operate as. Seems bizarre to me unless he is planning on leaving it empty in an attempt to twist DCCs arm.

It would be some laugh if it ended up as a Wetherspoons just a few doors down from Brown Thomas

Robbo

L1011 wrote: »

Leases of that period generally had upward-only reviews and may not have had break clauses. For that was Tiger era Ireland.

Unless there was a deed of variation entered into since the Supreme Court judgment involving the premises, it's a lease executed in 1987 with a famously peculiar review clause. The original landlord was Royal Insurance plc.

L1011

Robbo wrote: »

Unless there was a deed of variation entered into since the Supreme Court judgment involving the premises, it's a lease executed in 1987 with a famously peculiar review clause. The original landlord was Royal Insurance plc.

Reading the reports on that clause it looks as if you could have continued flipping interpretations back and forth through infinity levels of appeal courts

35 year lease from 1987 would mean the original lease hasn't got particularly long left although I think they'd have met all the requirements to require renewal.