At least it means that original frontage will be kept. I saw them ripping off the modern signage over the weekend to reveal the handpainted one underneath and had my fingers crossed the new owner would be keeping it.
I assume the bathrooms will still be his signature Mad Max: Fury Road aesthetic, only with more dripping pipes.
They reason they're incredibly out of character is that he just kept the ones from when it was a nightclub, so they've had a refurb this side of the millennium.
Eurgh. We should all be writing to Steve Rotherham about this. Nobody should have a monopoly on pubs in the city. All the pubs look and feel the same, it’s becoming like a Wetherspoons of Liverpool. One man shouldn’t have that much influence over how things are done in pubs in one city. Independent pubs could struggle to compete against him. He thinks of himself as a saviour of the nightlife but in reality he’s just a capitalist.
I really don't see the issue. There's a lot of pearl clutching over some misplaced fawning nostalgia for places that people didn't really visit. In general, his restorations are sympathetic and inviting. He is creating jobs and nice places for people to drink, and often repurposes buildings to create pubs (Red Lion, Shandon Bells) or restores pubs that were badly run or shut down (Big House, Alma etc).
The taxidermy trope is tired. If you don't like the pubs, don't go. It's pretty easy. And thankfully there's loads of choice if you want to drink elsewhere. If he has five per cent of the pubs in the city I'd be surprised. Hardly a monopoly.
I can see both sides to be honest, I don’t love one person having such a monopoly but at the same time he’s saved a lot of pubs that would otherwise be left to rot. Think people would be less arsed if there was more effort to make them all feel a bit different, the taxidermy joke might be tired but that and the battered ceilings make most of his pubs feel like a copy and paste job
Im not a massive fan... but at the same time... Greene King, Stonegate, Wetherspoons, etc etc have pretty much killed the vast majoirty of independent pubs across the whole country. So they were already being killed and out competed long before... hes just another big fish in the pond full of big fish at this point.
I just wish he had some taste in decor. Can we write to him and tell him to sort that out instead?
I'm not massively knowledgeable of corporate pub businesses. The point is that those 800 locations, while small compared to others, are still dwarfing independent pubs.
As bored as I’m getting from all the pubs looking the same and the same taps in each one, the only realistic alternatives would be an empty building, a vape shop, or a takeaway. So I’d much rather have another mediocre pub that people enjoy than any of that shite. Look at the state of Lord Street these days ffs.
Also, if his pubs didn’t exist, all the customers would go elsewhere and the other good places would be absolutely rammed…
I'm curious if you're not aware that Rotherham is not leader of Liverpool City Council, and thus is not the right person to write to in the first instance about planning complaints, or if you think the City Region Combined Authority has the power to do something bout this?
No one bats an eyelid when a new maccies opens up.
No one bats an eyelid when Tesco opens up a new Express.
No one bat an eyelid when Wetherspoons opened the Captain Alexander on James Street in 2019.
No one bat an eyelid when Stonegate Group opened Be At One on North John Street in 2025.
No one bat an eyelid when Lounges opened up Deco on Bold Street this year.
1936 Pubco isn't doing anything more or less wrong than any other business with multiple outlets.
Pretty much every place you've ever given your money to (specifically in town) has another outlet somewhere in the city without you ever knowing because it's a different name on the door.
I don't understand why you'd think they're "pretending" to be independent. Is it because they don't whack the same logo on all their businesses? What does "independent" even mean here? Do you specifically mean one physical bricks and mortar outlet?
If a business has more than one physical outlet, does that mean it's no longer independent? For example, with that definition, do you class Mowgli - a business started in Liverpool - as independent? That has 26.
If a business owns more than one pub, but doesn't use the same logo on the door as the rest of them, does that mean it's pretending?
The majority of pubs in town are owned by larger businesses. Economies of scale means its cheaper to run multiple instead of one.
I’m aware, I just find it strange that people are quick to defend him and (quite rightly) attack JSM for the same practices.
He’s quickly building a monopoly on pubs across Liverpool and is in a position to set prices across the whole city. Like I said, my issue is the speed of his expansion - last time he tried this, it failed and left hundreds jobless.
Yes, he is saving venues but he is also leaving venues to rot away like Metrocola.
Of course a business with more than one venue can still be independent. Derek’s is an independent business and not set on owning every sandwich shop in the city.
When you’re touching on 20 venues, I don’t think you can be considered an independent anymore. That’s nearly JSM levels.
Ok so a business with more than one venue can be independent, but if you own more than 20, then you're no longer independent? What about 15? 10? What if I have 25, but they're scattered over the UK so you personally only know of one or two locally? Where is the line?
Hoping you see my point. Again, I'm not trying to have a go here. I'm trying to figure out your definition of independent and how this particular company is "pretending" to be so, but another business with even more than 20 outlets is safe. Pretending implies they're actively omitting details. I was asking what that something is. And how if 20 is a number that isn't set in stone (by you, me, or legally), then it's a poor way of defining independence. A business can't pretend to be independent if independence isn't defined and isn't omitting anything. Does that make sense?
My own opinion is that the term "independent" doesn't actually mean anything. It's a nonsense word for the very reason you mentioned - "a business with more than one venue can still be independent". You're either in business or not. That's why "they don't pretend to be independent pubs!" doesn't mean anything to me.
You edited your comment after I replied, so I didn’t get a chance to clarify in my earlier reply.
Wetherspoons has consistent branding across its venues. Mitchells & Butlers does the same, as does JSM in Liverpool. 1936 Pubco owns four venues on the same road (Lark Lane) and you wouldn’t necessarily know they were owned by the same company. They all have their own identities and don’t share any obvious branding.
I think you’re getting hung up on trying to establish a precise threshold for independence, when that’s not necessarily how customers understand or use the term. You might think “independent” is a nonsense word, but it’s a meaningful selling point in hospitality. Plenty of consumers actively prefer to support independent businesses over chains or larger pub groups, including myself.
Having venues present themselves as entirely separate businesses, with no obvious shared identity, plays into that preference.
I’m not saying there’s a legally defined number of venues at which a business stops being independent. I’m saying that ownership, branding and how a business presents itself to customers are three different things.
Ok so it's the "consistent branding across its venues" that's an issue for you. The lack of the same logo above the door.
So then I can look at a business like Ma Pub Group and with your logic, say that you wouldn't know that Ma Boyles, Nova Scotia, Tempest, Newington Temple etc. are all owned by them because they don't have the same consistent branding across its venues. Does that mean they're pretending to be independent? It's similar to most pubs in town like I mentioned. Just because there is no consistent branding across venues doesn't mean two or more aren't owned by the same business. Like I say, most businesses that own a pub own more than one pub - you just don't know about it because the same logo isn't above the door.
Plenty of consumers actively prefer to support independent businesses
Totally agree. But my point is that neither you nor I has a definition for independence. You already said that you can have multiple venues and still be independent. Dereks is an independent business with your definition, despite four venues. Does that mean Moose Coffee is an independent business too? They've only got eight? I certainly wouldn't say they are, but it's under your cap of 20, and have consistent branding. It even started in Liverpool.
All I'm saying is you can't support an independent business if there's no definition for what independence is. I thought you might say one physical venue, but you ruled that out.
I think you’re arguing against a cap that I never proposed. I said Pubco owns 20 venues, which I think is a lot, not that 20 is the point at which a business stops being independent. I’ve already described Derek’s as independent, despite it having four venues, so I’m clearly not arguing that a business can only be independent if it has one bricks-and-mortar location.
On your example of Ma Pub Group, I feel that there is a difference between operating a small group of venues and continually expanding a portfolio to the point where one company has such a substantial presence in such a small area. Pubco owning four venues on the same road, alongside its wider portfolio of around 20, is relevant to that discussion. My concern is the scale and pace of that expansion and what it means for the local pub scene, not an arbitrary number at which a business ceases to be independent.
I’m simply highlighting that Pubco’s venues have their own identities, with no obvious shared branding to indicate common ownership. This affects how customers perceive them and whether they realise they’re supporting the same company. I’m aware they’re not the only group to operate in this way and I’m aware that many pubs in Liverpool are owned by large groups having previously worked in hospitality.
I really do disagree that independence is a meaningless term. Ownership, scale and how a business is financed or operated all matter. There doesn’t have to be a magic number of venues for the distinction between a small independent operator and a large, rapidly expanding group to be meaningful.
You don’t have to agree with my assessment of Pubco, but I never set a cap of 20. I mentioned it to illustrate the scale of the rapid growth of the company. My main concern remains its aggressive expansion and the impact that can have on the local pub scene and the damage his last collapse had on the city.
Mowgli's an odd example to choose, they have a branch in Cheshire Oaks and spin off cookery books, no one's thought of them as independent in years.
An independent hospitality business is one where you might expect to be served or cooked for by the owner. It's one you make an effort to visit when you're in a city because there isn't one on every high street with chefs cooking dishes created by someone else. It might even have some history and tradition. Guttman pubs want to be this, but they're faking it, exactly like jarg Irish bars.
Still, a pubs a pub, I avoid them but don't boycott them, but his ability to capitalise on the fact that truly independent pubs have been struggling to stay afloat is nothing to celebrate, he's not "creating jobs" out of the goodness of his heart, and he's got a terrible track record. It's a big part of the rapid Disneyfication of Liverpool and it's shit.
That was sort of my point. I wouldn't think they're independent either. But my other point was just at what point does the switch happen? Because I don't know. My point is that there is no definition. There is no "if this business is X then you are independent".
he's not "creating jobs" out of the goodness of his heart
I mean I agree, but that's every business owner. No one goes into a pub business to help people. It's a for-profit business like any other.
It's a big part of the rapid Disneyfication of Liverpool and it's shit.
Hey don't get me wrong, I completely agree with this. That's not really a Liverpool issue though. That's a national and basically western civilisation issue. I think we'd all love one physical bricks and mortar venue per business/brand/person. Something different on every corner.
Gutmann's "Shabby Chic" obsession is a problem when it runs the risk of patrons ending up in hospital. Not to mention the detrimental effect on historical architectural features. No-one really needs to see the wattle in the "wattle and daub" to enjoy their pint.
Apologies for linking the Echo, but I won't apologise for bringing attention to the incident, since it didn't make headlines here
Ok maybe I should have asked "when was the last time a ceiling fell in because some hipster pub mogul deliberately weakened the structure to give the place some CHARACTER"
Because that happened in a Gutmann Pub, in Liverpool, where none of your examples are
My main issue with this is he'll put in the same drinks as all the other pubs he's taken over and there'll be one less place offering different beers and lagers. He does okay with real ale selections, not great but there's a variety but in terms of lagers it's always Peroni and Cruzcampo which is incredibly boring and an uninspiring wine list
It’s on Hope Street next door to The Everyman. It’s a basement bar/restaurant. Dom who has The Denbigh Castle, The Swan & The Bridewell manages it. It’s not far from The White Hart if you fancy visiting a Gutmann gaff before or after.
Try the erdinger black on draught. It’s incredible. They’ve also got a bright orange looking weiss beer that I’ll be sampling next time I’m in there. The staff will give you a little sample as well if you ask nicely!
Look at JSM..... They own most of the bars in town and are partnered with nation security so they definitely have a monopoly in town, JSM (pub invest group ltd - as it's now known) also has their fingers in the pies of overnight accommodation in town too
40
u/JeanMichelFerri 2d ago
Sledgehammer to the ceiling, trip to the taxidermist. Jobs a goodun.