The Bar Towel

This was posted recently on the Beau's Facebook, since it's ACGO related I figure it fits here:
"Hey Everyone - We received some unfortunate news this afternoon. The AGCO, acting on a complaint by another brewery, informed Operation Come Home that they cannot purchase beer from our retail store. This effectively means that we are not able to continue with our Buy Your Beau's Online program that we launched today."

There is also a good blog post from Beau's to follow http://beausbeer.blogspot.com/2011/11/g ... -beer.html

Very unfortunate to hear. I hadn't heard much about this program before hand, but it seems a very good idea. Deliver beer to the ppl. of Ottawa, employ at risk youth, and donate $15 of every delivery to the Operation Come Home charity. Sucks to see it'd be shut down so fast.

Only other brewery doing home delivery I am aware of is Cool, i'm not sure the technicalities on all this, but i wonder what distinguishes the two?

So....the obvious question...which brewery was it?

I know, I know...we don't want to speculate, but hard not to...

There's a lot on the blog post about the Beer Store, but would Molson-Coors et al, care about Beau's home delivery?

I sure hope it's them and not another small brewer...

Either way, I sense an angry email coming...

I mean, God, a programme that employs homeless youth!


On another note - the comments on the blog are insane. People are using this to rail against the LCBO!

Unfreaking believable. I'm more pissed at the AGCO to have zero balls in this situation.

There is nothing stopping the other "brewery" from adopting this model and competing fairly and openly with Beau's. But I suppose they already have that model with the Beer Store and want to stop any competition against them.

I'm super pissed at this and hopefully it can be a quick change in the wording in order to get BYBO back rolling.

I posted this in the other thread about it..

Considering the model would only benefit small breweries in the long run, and encourage them to take such initiatives themselves, is there really any debate over who it was? It most certainly wasn't an Ontario brewery in my mind, but a certain collection of breweries from Golden Colorado, Japan, and Belgium. You know, aside from the LCBO itself, the ones with the most to lose (however miniscule) from such a scenario being allowed.

So I just got my Beau's BYOB delivery. Apparently, I am one of 10 people who managed to get involved in the single day it was operational.

The deivery people showed up in their BYOB coats and hats with my beer in hand, but seemed disappointed/dejected at the news. It was kind of a sad sight.

While I don't drink a lot of Beau's product, this program was such an amazing idea to get the specialty items into the city and, more importantly, to support Operation Come Home that I would have made an order every few months just to participate.

I really want to know what brewery called in to whine.

The "other brewery" is likely one of the big three - but I wouldn't be surprised to find out it was Kichesippi. As it is already they won't be getting any of my money until I see some Scotch Irish brands back in existence, or some sort of evidence that they didn't just buy out the Heritage and SI brands and recipes only to do jack shit with them.

Steam Whistle has been doing home deliveries for years...was there domething different about the Beaus model?

Droogy wrote:Steam Whistle has been doing home deliveries for years...was there domething different about the Beaus model?

Steam Whistle maintains and operates their own fleet of delivery vehicles on a for profit basis.

saints_gambit wrote:

Droogy wrote:Steam Whistle has been doing home deliveries for years...was there domething different about the Beaus model?

Steam Whistle maintains and operates their own fleet of delivery vehicles on a for profit basis.

Same with Cool (as someone asked about earlier in the thread).

In this case, the Home Delivery Licence was issued to Operation Come Home, who would be purchasing the beer from Beau's for delivery. But the wording of the standard licence is such that only products purchased at the LCBO and the Beer Store can be purchased and delivered, which is what Dial-A-Bottle services do.

It's a technicality, but one that you'd think the AGCO would've been aware of when they issued the license in the first place.

Knowing how tenacious Beau's can be, I wouldn't be surprised if this turns into a fight to get the standard Home Delivery Licence changed.

Droogy wrote:Steam Whistle has been doing home deliveries for years...was there domething different about the Beaus model?

Steamwhistle employees are doing the delivery, not a third party

Troy tweeted this link earlier

http://www.agco.on.ca/pdfs/en/tip_sheets/3200.pdf

Under Do's
Deliver only liquor that was purchased at the LCBO or The Beer Store.
Under Don'ts
Deliver liquor that was not purchased at the LCBO or The Beer Store.

Ridiculous, but this is Ontario

Queef wrote:I posted this in the other thread about it..

Considering the model would only benefit small breweries in the long run, and encourage them to take such initiatives themselves, is there really any debate over who it was? It most certainly wasn't an Ontario brewery in my mind, but a certain collection of breweries from Golden Colorado, Japan, and Belgium. You know, aside from the LCBO itself, the ones with the most to lose (however miniscule) from such a scenario being allowed.

I think in the big picture you are right - that this would benefit small breweries, but given the unique circumstances here, I wouldn't be surprised in the least if it was a local brewer.

Beau's situation is unique in that the challenges in acquiring their non-LCBO product for the Ottawa market are significant. They are far away. The local small brewers probably have as much or more at stake as the bigu guys in the short run in keeping Beau's out of the hands of consumers. And their potential benefits in terms of home delivery are much less significant than those for Beau's.

I don't want to blame anyone without some evidence, big or small. Just saying that I can see an argument for either one being the culprit here.

rejtable wrote:

Queef wrote:I posted this in the other thread about it..

Considering the model would only benefit small breweries in the long run, and encourage them to take such initiatives themselves, is there really any debate over who it was? It most certainly wasn't an Ontario brewery in my mind, but a certain collection of breweries from Golden Colorado, Japan, and Belgium. You know, aside from the LCBO itself, the ones with the most to lose (however miniscule) from such a scenario being allowed.

I think in the big picture you are right - that this would benefit small breweries, but given the unique circumstances here, I wouldn't be surprised in the least if it was a local brewer.

Beau's situation is unique in that the challenges in acquiring their non-LCBO product for the Ottawa market are significant. They are far away. The local small brewers probably have as much or more at stake as the bigu guys in the short run in keeping Beau's out of the hands of consumers. And their potential benefits in terms of home delivery are much less significant than those for Beau's.

I don't want to blame anyone without some evidence, big or small. Just saying that I can see an argument for either one being the culprit here.

I suppose it is possible that it is another small brewer, either one of the local breweries/brewpubs or the owners of the brewpub that is going to be opening in January. But I read the St. John Wort blog entry about this and he had a very good point. Fans of Beau's are probably also fans of those breweries, and when the name of the complainer comes out, if it was a small brewer it could be a huge PR mess that could really turn of a significant portion of their fanbase (a fan base which probably wouldn't be that big to begin with). I suppose this could be possible, but it would be super dumb. If it is a larger brewer, they probably figure there wouldn't be a lot of cross-over between devoted Beau's drinkers, who would be pissed off, and the people who drink their product. So even then while it would be a PR mess (you're taking away jobs from homeless people) it probably wouldn't be as big of a hit in terms of money lost.

The thing I don't get is the logic behind this regulation, who is it designed to protect? I mean a private for-profit company can deliver me beer, and a brewer can deliver me beer (if I order a Keg from Beau's I can still get it), but a brewery can not contract a private company (even a non-profit one) to deliver that beer to me for them.

Kel Varnsen wrote:
The thing I don't get is the logic behind this regulation, who is it designed to protect? I mean a private for-profit company can deliver me beer, and a brewer can deliver me beer (if I order a Keg from Beau's I can still get it), but a brewery can not contract a private company (even a non-profit one) to deliver that beer to me for them.

I would guess when these dial-a-bottle companies were started the LLBO (predecessor to AGCO) wanted to make it clear that they could not deliver booze from out of province or product from a Brew/Vint-on-premise

Kel Varnsen wrote: I suppose it is possible that it is another small brewer, either one of the local breweries/brewpubs or the owners of the brewpub that is going to be opening in January. But I read the St. John Wort blog entry about this and he had a very good point. Fans of Beau's are probably also fans of those breweries, and when the name of the complainer comes out, if it was a small brewer it could be a huge PR mess that could really turn of a significant portion of their fanbase (a fan base which probably wouldn't be that big to begin with). I suppose this could be possible, but it would be super dumb. If it is a larger brewer, they probably figure there wouldn't be a lot of cross-over between devoted Beau's drinkers, who would be pissed off, and the people who drink their product. So even then while it would be a PR mess (you're taking away jobs from homeless people) it probably wouldn't be as big of a hit in terms of money lost.

.

Oh, I totally agree that the risk is FAR greater for any of the locals. It could be nuclear for them if this spun big enough.

But that doesn't mean someone from a local wasn't shortsighted or dumb enough not to do it.

I'm just saying I'm willing to hold onto my pitchfork and torch until I hear more.

icemachine wrote:
Ridiculous, but this is Ontario

exactly