Well the pizza apocalypse that was so feared by some in Avondale, never manifested. It looks instead that the truth about the business and it's owner is coming out which is what many of us knew all along. He is a fair minded, forward thinking individual who will do the right thing for the community and small business. Below is a post he made to his FB page. :) Well done Mr. Valentino!
(http://i.imgur.com/apYBegX.jpg)
From Mellow Mushroom FB page:
To all Mellow Mushroom Fans: I am writing to ask each of you to support me in my efforts to protest Budweiser and the brands they represent outside of our friends in the craft beer business. Please read the article below to learn the details. "It's like paying protection money" to the mob, said Sen. Jack Latvala, R-Clearwater, who supports allowing half-gallon growlers with no strings attached. I have been watching this process from the sidelines and it is past the point of being ridiculous. I sell a lot of their beer which supports their efforts to lobby legislators to penalize craft brewers in this state just because InBev has no innovation of their own. They are losing market share to better beer and this is their way of making up for the lost revenues on the backs of small businesses in the State of Florida.
I am asking everyone to support boycotting their beers in my stores. I am also asking everyone to offer comments on whether or not I should pull their beers from my shelves altogether. This issue needs attention before they ruin the craft beer business in the State of Florida. So please SHARE, LIKE, or COMMENT. Thank you for your consideration.
-John Valentino (Owner Mellow Mushroom Jacksonville,FL)
Budweiser, Intuition Ale Works, Aardwolf Brewery, Engine 15 Brewing Company, Green Room Brewing, Pinglehead Brewing Company, Veterans United Craft Brewery, Bold City Brewery, Mile Marker Brewing and Cigar City Brewing
I'll preface this comment; I do not agree with the proposed legislature. I am for 64oz growlers with no strings attached and do not think it's fair that a business is mandated to sell a product to a middleman that doesn't actually change hands.
With that said... is this legislature 'that toxic' for the craft breweries? Is a mark up on beer that is sold through a tap room.. a tap room that is only open on average 3 or so days per week the death knell?
I'd be curious to see what the average percentage of tap room sales vs. sales of beer distributed off-site really is.
During the Senate meetings this week, Joey Redner (owner of Cigar City), stated that he made well into the six figures with tap room sales. I don't have the numbers for any other breweries, but I imagine it would eviscerate a decent revenue stream.
If you've been paying attention at all, it's just troubling watching these alleged conservatives betray the ideologies their parties were built upon. Frankly, it was embarrassing for Senator Stargel to come up with reasoning for the restrictions, or her attempts to define the difference between micro and macro breweries. If I was a brewer, it would be insulting. Further, the limitations she suggests weren't rooted in any research, but simply seemed if she drew an arbitrary number out of her hat.
If this legislation passes (which seems extremely doubtful during this legislative session), and I were a brewer, I would consider making all my beer for sale in the taproom only, just as a nice middle finger to the distributors. Whereas many other states are encouraging the economic growth craft brewers are providing, this State refuses to get out of its own way.
Quote from: Shwaz on April 23, 2014, 04:43:32 PM
I'll preface this comment; I do not agree with the proposed legislature. I am for 64oz growlers with no strings attached and do not think it's fair that a business is mandated to sell a product to a middleman that doesn't actually change hands.
With that said... is this legislature 'that toxic' for the craft breweries? Is a mark up on beer that is sold through a tap room.. a tap room that is only open on average 3 or so days per week the death knell?
I'd be curious to see what the average percentage of tap room sales vs. sales of beer distributed off-site really is.
I am curious why you think a business owner (breweries) should be forced to give revenue to another business (a state mandated middleman)just because they have more lobbyists and more money.
^Amen.
For all of the politicians that claim to be "pro-small business", this legislation flies in the face of that.
Sometimes I think there is no such thing as "Pro small business" anymore. Small business seems like the first to get audited, the first to get laws passed that hurt it and the first to pay when new taxes are passed. So, why do we do it again? Oh yeah, we just can't help ourselves! We must simply like the punishment!
No, the passing of this law wont stop the craft brewers, but why should they pay this kind of price? Why should the big business get it's unfair share?
That Valentino guy sounds like a wacko.
Quote from: Intuition Ale Works on April 23, 2014, 06:18:06 PM
Quote from: Shwaz on April 23, 2014, 04:43:32 PM
I'll preface this comment; I do not agree with the proposed legislature. I am for 64oz growlers with no strings attached and do not think it's fair that a business is mandated to sell a product to a middleman that doesn't actually change hands.
With that said... is this legislature 'that toxic' for the craft breweries? Is a mark up on beer that is sold through a tap room.. a tap room that is only open on average 3 or so days per week the death knell?
I'd be curious to see what the average percentage of tap room sales vs. sales of beer distributed off-site really is.
I am curious why you think a business owner (breweries) should be forced to give revenue to another business (a state mandated middleman)just because they have more lobbyists and more money.
I literally said it isn't fair and that I do not agree with the proposed legislation.
The justification provided by the bill's leader "because it is a system that has been in place since the era of Prohibition", smacks of lunacy. We need to do it THIS way because it has been the way we have done it since the 1930s.
Anyone else see any changes in the "way we do things" since the 1930s? Just think of all the cool things we would live without had we succumbed to doing things like the 1930s.
Quote from: Shwaz on April 23, 2014, 09:35:32 PM
Quote from: Intuition Ale Works on April 23, 2014, 06:18:06 PM
Quote from: Shwaz on April 23, 2014, 04:43:32 PM
I'll preface this comment; I do not agree with the proposed legislature. I am for 64oz growlers with no strings attached and do not think it's fair that a business is mandated to sell a product to a middleman that doesn't actually change hands.
With that said... is this legislature 'that toxic' for the craft breweries? Is a mark up on beer that is sold through a tap room.. a tap room that is only open on average 3 or so days per week the death knell?
I'd be curious to see what the average percentage of tap room sales vs. sales of beer distributed off-site really is.
I am curious why you think a business owner (breweries) should be forced to give revenue to another business (a state mandated middleman)just because they have more lobbyists and more money.
I literally said it isn't fair and that I do not agree with the proposed legislation.
lol. haven't seen you around for awhile, shwaz. I was wondering the same thing...in fact I believe there was a discussion about tap room profits on these boards some time ago. But it definitely doesn't change the fact that it's not fair and shouldn't be happening.
Quote from: Steve on April 23, 2014, 06:44:51 PM
^Amen.
For all of the politicians that claim to be "pro-small business", this legislation flies in the face of that.
Not to mention "anti-big government" and anti-regulation.
They want to deregulate the environment but more regulation for beer sales.
Quote from: Intuition Ale Works on April 23, 2014, 06:18:06 PM
Quote from: Shwaz on April 23, 2014, 04:43:32 PM
I'll preface this comment; I do not agree with the proposed legislature. I am for 64oz growlers with no strings attached and do not think it's fair that a business is mandated to sell a product to a middleman that doesn't actually change hands.
With that said... is this legislature 'that toxic' for the craft breweries? Is a mark up on beer that is sold through a tap room.. a tap room that is only open on average 3 or so days per week the death knell?
I'd be curious to see what the average percentage of tap room sales vs. sales of beer distributed off-site really is.
I am curious why you think a business owner (breweries) should be forced to give revenue to another business (a state mandated middleman)just because they have more lobbyists and more money.
If the micro brewers were paying off the politicians, they wouldn't have to pay off their competitors.
It is not about 'principles' folks, it is about power. This is a classic example. Learn it well.
Quote from: ProjectMaximus on April 24, 2014, 01:27:05 AM
Quote from: Shwaz on April 23, 2014, 09:35:32 PM
Quote from: Intuition Ale Works on April 23, 2014, 06:18:06 PM
Quote from: Shwaz on April 23, 2014, 04:43:32 PM
I'll preface this comment; I do not agree with the proposed legislature. I am for 64oz growlers with no strings attached and do not think it's fair that a business is mandated to sell a product to a middleman that doesn't actually change hands.
With that said... is this legislature 'that toxic' for the craft breweries? Is a mark up on beer that is sold through a tap room.. a tap room that is only open on average 3 or so days per week the death knell?
I'd be curious to see what the average percentage of tap room sales vs. sales of beer distributed off-site really is.
I am curious why you think a business owner (breweries) should be forced to give revenue to another business (a state mandated middleman)just because they have more lobbyists and more money.
I literally said it isn't fair and that I do not agree with the proposed legislation.
lol. haven't seen you around for awhile, shwaz. I was wondering the same thing...in fact I believe there was a discussion about tap room profits on these boards some time ago. But it definitely doesn't change the fact that it's not fair and shouldn't be happening.
Exactly! I'm really just curious.
Quote from: vicupstate on April 24, 2014, 06:26:19 AM
Quote from: Intuition Ale Works on April 23, 2014, 06:18:06 PM
Quote from: Shwaz on April 23, 2014, 04:43:32 PM
I'll preface this comment; I do not agree with the proposed legislature. I am for 64oz growlers with no strings attached and do not think it's fair that a business is mandated to sell a product to a middleman that doesn't actually change hands.
With that said... is this legislature 'that toxic' for the craft breweries? Is a mark up on beer that is sold through a tap room.. a tap room that is only open on average 3 or so days per week the death knell?
I'd be curious to see what the average percentage of tap room sales vs. sales of beer distributed off-site really is.
I am curious why you think a business owner (breweries) should be forced to give revenue to another business (a state mandated middleman)just because they have more lobbyists and more money.
If the micro brewers were paying off the politicians, they wouldn't have to pay off their competitors.
It is not about 'principles' folks, it is about power. This is a classic example. Learn it well.
The comparative actual power is held by the media, who have a degree of direct control over the voters, and derail the typical lobbying process if they become involved. In florida much of our media trends conservative, essentially the opposite of other states, in choosing what to cover and how to editorialize it. Frankly it's a large part of why someone like Rick Scott can win a statewide election. This was only going to work if the media hadn't picked up on it, or if they'd sided with the distributors and focused on the growler rather than the new restrictions. But they did, and they didn't. They have heavily editorialized in favor of the brewers, and the reaction at the street level is vehemently negative. Money is nice, but goal #1 is always winning the next election cycle, and no individual donor is worth getting the boot.
My dollar bet: They'll wait on this until media attention dies down, and then try and sneak it through next session.
Shwaz, though you may not have intended it, asking "is this legislature 'that toxic' for the craft breweries?"—with scare quotes wrapped around "that toxic!" no less!—suggests you think a good argument can be made in forcing small-business owners to give handouts to bigger businesses because...that's the way things are done. No one who is for this legislation has put forth a better argument than that. Because they can't.
I don't doubt your sincerity about being against it, but if you are imprecise in your phrasing, you must expect the kind of response you have so far received.
Quote from: funwithteeth on April 24, 2014, 10:48:09 AM
Shwaz, though you may not have intended it, asking "is this legislature 'that toxic' for the craft breweries?"—with scare quotes wrapped around "that toxic!" no less!—suggests you think a good argument can be made in forcing small-business owners to give handouts to bigger businesses because...that's the way things are done. No one who is for this legislation has put forth a better argument than that. Because they can't.
I don't doubt your sincerity about being against it, but if you are imprecise in your phrasing, you must expect the kind of response you have so far received.
The only argument I see is that it wouldn't be as detrimental to the craft breweries as portrayed by some of the comments floating around. It's always seemed like to me that the goal of a craft brewer, from a business stand point is to distribute as much beer as possible. And that the distributers provide a service in where they can help sell your brand and in turn get you out on more shelves & taverns.
Is the distributer a necessary evil? I don't think so. I believe all of breweries in Jax would have no problem what-so-ever selling their products to any outlet nationwide.
As for the negative responses to my curiosity... luckily I'm not that sensitive :)
QuoteMoney is nice, but goal #1 is always winning the next election cycle, and no individual donor is worth getting the boot.
My dollar bet: They'll wait on this until media attention dies down, and then try and sneak it through next session.
Last year the NC legislature passed MANY very controversial bills, that were very unpopular and heavily editorialized against in the media.
But Art Pope paid good money for those legislation, so they got passed. In a one party state, like FL and NC, the districts are gerrymandered to such an extent that retribution at the polls is unlikely. Retribution from Art Pope, however is certain if you don't tow the line.
You're right about the bet though.
Distributors should not be paid for doing nothing. If they actually distributed craft beer, it would be a different story. Usually they have a minimum number of bottles, or cases, which a small brewery or winery would never come close. There are many laws since prohibition, not all of them valid.
Quote from: Shwaz on April 24, 2014, 11:52:18 AM
Quote from: funwithteeth on April 24, 2014, 10:48:09 AM
Shwaz, though you may not have intended it, asking "is this legislature 'that toxic' for the craft breweries?"—with scare quotes wrapped around "that toxic!" no less!—suggests you think a good argument can be made in forcing small-business owners to give handouts to bigger businesses because...that's the way things are done. No one who is for this legislation has put forth a better argument than that. Because they can't.
I don't doubt your sincerity about being against it, but if you are imprecise in your phrasing, you must expect the kind of response you have so far received.
The only argument I see is that it wouldn't be as detrimental to the craft breweries as portrayed by some of the comments floating around. It's always seemed like to me that the goal of a craft brewer, from a business stand point is to distribute as much beer as possible. And that the distributers provide a service in where they can help sell your brand and in turn get you out on more shelves & taverns.
Is the distributer a necessary evil? I don't think so. I believe all of breweries in Jax would have no problem what-so-ever selling their products to any outlet nationwide.
As for the negative responses to my curiosity... luckily I'm not that sensitive :)
Please take my word for it that it is very detrimental to our industry. It would cost us many thousand dollars in revenue.
Joe Redner, the founder of Cigar City, estimates it would cost him $175,000.
http://blogs.orlandoweekly.com/salivation-army/orlando-craft-beer-wmfe/
This is what happens when you get "bigger government." Remember this when you vote and think it's a good idea to have the gov. involved in every aspect of our lives.
I'm completely naive on this whole subject, but couldn't a few local craft brewers get together and form their own distributor company/co-op to both market their products and skirt the legal requirements?
Quote from: Intuition Ale Works on April 24, 2014, 03:35:46 PM
Quote from: Shwaz on April 24, 2014, 11:52:18 AM
Quote from: funwithteeth on April 24, 2014, 10:48:09 AM
Shwaz, though you may not have intended it, asking "is this legislature 'that toxic' for the craft breweries?"—with scare quotes wrapped around "that toxic!" no less!—suggests you think a good argument can be made in forcing small-business owners to give handouts to bigger businesses because...that's the way things are done. No one who is for this legislation has put forth a better argument than that. Because they can't.
I don't doubt your sincerity about being against it, but if you are imprecise in your phrasing, you must expect the kind of response you have so far received.
The only argument I see is that it wouldn't be as detrimental to the craft breweries as portrayed by some of the comments floating around. It's always seemed like to me that the goal of a craft brewer, from a business stand point is to distribute as much beer as possible. And that the distributers provide a service in where they can help sell your brand and in turn get you out on more shelves & taverns.
Is the distributer a necessary evil? I don't think so. I believe all of breweries in Jax would have no problem what-so-ever selling their products to any outlet nationwide.
As for the negative responses to my curiosity... luckily I'm not that sensitive :)
Please take my word for it that it is very detrimental to our industry. It would cost us many thousand dollars in revenue.
Joe Redner, the founder of Cigar City, estimates it would cost him $175,000.
http://blogs.orlandoweekly.com/salivation-army/orlando-craft-beer-wmfe/
I have no problem taking your word for it Ben. This is your life, if anyone knows the impact you do.
Ben:
Could you please let us know who the lobbyest or lobbyests were who convinced the craft brewers that this was a fight that they could win?
I'd like to avoid them.
Tri-Eagle Sales (Bud distributor in Tallahassee) for one. Their lobbyist wrote the damn thing. He's got buddies in high places. I am sure there are many more.
This started under the guise of lets allow 64 oz growlers. It should be a very simple, yes or no vote. Instead, it has morphed into a horrible bill, that appears to be moving forward.
QuoteI am sure there are many more. This started under the guise of lets allow 64 oz growlers. It should be a very simple, yes or no vote. Instead, it has morphed into a horrible bill, that appears to be moving forward.
Yup, I enjoy what Intuition has created, enjoy what the Miller family has created with Bold City, but Craft Beers poked the bear too much (originally they only wanted the half gallon growler added as OK, since 47 of 50 states allow this size) and this is the distributor's iron fist coming down, quid pro quo. I still think this is a 15 round fight, with us still in round 1. If nothing, this should educate the craft industry that it needs to build a better lobbying arm and contribute more towards influencing their business.
QuoteAn amendment Monday by Sen. Andy Gardiner, R-Orlando, redefined the already contentious proposal by allowing existing breweries that annually make fewer than 2,000 kegs of beer, about 31,000 gallons, to sell their beer directly in cans or bottles. But to keep the exemption, the business must maintain production below that level.
Those who voted for the bill in its two committee stops have received a total of $51,500 from the beer distributing industry, while those voting for craft breweries have received only $2,000.
It will be interesting to see what the craft beer industry does new or differently as a result of what happens in Tallahassee. Again, round 1 may be coming to a close, but this is going to be a long fight!
Ed Schultz picked up the story.
http://egbertowillies.com/2014/04/27/ed-schultz-sbl-1714-kill-small-business/ (http://egbertowillies.com/2014/04/27/ed-schultz-sbl-1714-kill-small-business/)