I know someone posted a thread about them sueing or challenging Charlotte, NC but haven't seen this. They are trying to sell their own beer directly in part of KY. http://www.wkyt.com/home/headlines/...entucky-over-beer-distribution-280047592.html This is one of the first articles I've seen supporting the three tier system. The Kentucky Brewer's Guild is of course fighting this along with stores/distributors. http://louisvillebeer.com/the-king-of-beer/three-tiers-for-anheuser-busch/
AB already owns a distributor in KY. This will just give them another branch. I am obligated to say I am an AB employee, and any comments I make don't reflect the views of my employer.
Well, that's the alleged story. There were some adjunct scientists that were quoted as saying that "something" really went wrong in the "Rice Room". They really weren't in on the final push button brewing, but confirmed that natural products were used throughout the process. I'm really on the internet and what I say may or may not be true. Those Belgians know where their sales force is at all times. Never know when you might need a Bud!
AB is the worst. Go ahead and tell me about how their distro enables other distro, I don't care. They specialize is making terrible canned water and suing people just to be assholes.
Wouldn't it be cheaper for them to just make a few large campaign contributions and see how it plays out. Tis the season to buy politicians and from what I read every one of them in KY has their hand out bigtime. This whole article reminds me of the flick "casino" somebody fired the wrong beurocrats dumb son in law is my guess
Well there is some legal legitimacy to A-B's claim... "The company claims [Kentucky Alcoholic Beverage Control] ABC has passed the statutory deadline for either approving or rejecting the application in 60 days." So A-B should have at least recieved a response within that time. Based on my very limited knowledge on this issue and Kentucky's beer laws as described in the blog post above (which seem similar to Pennsylvania's), in my opinion the easiest and most fair action would be to not permit any brewers [large or small] to own distributorships. The problem is Kentucky already set a precedent by granting A-B a previous distributor permit in the state. The ABC, or the state legislature, needs to make up their minds, but that rarely happens very quickly when gov't is involved.
The fact that the big beer brewers are allowed to also own the distribution channels to which their competitors depend seems like a massive conflict of interest, and I'm not sure how or why it's permitted. It's just like A-B spearheading the legislation against 64 oz. growlers in Florida. Where do they get off? It's like the only way they can stave off the competition is by throwing huge amounts of money at political candidates in the form of campaign contributions, monopolizing the distribution channels, and otherwise lawyering everyone to death. It's horrible that this is permitted to go on.
PA's three tier system sucks. There's no ifs, ands, or buts about it. So do the state controlled liquor stores. That said, I agree. No brewery should be permitted to also own anything more than the distribution channel of its own products. Budweiser controlling the distribution of its competitors products is simply bullshit. Between the money A-B contributes to political candidates, the owning of pretty much everyone's distribution, and their consistent pursuit of legislations that limits their competitors ability to compete...it's just ridiculous.
After reading the short newsclip, I saw nothing in this story that made m dislike them any more than usual. It seems, as @Ranbot notes below, they have a legitimate issue here that I think any business (even a small brewery) would choose to go the legal route.
Got any citations that suggest that - "...Budweiser (sic) controlling the distribution of its competitors products..." - is the reason AB wants to buy "Budweiser of Owensboro"? AB owns only about 2 dozen of their 500 or so distributorships (often called "branches" in the industry) and most of the ones I'm familiar with exclusively distribute ABI and associated brands (like CBA). That was the whole point of AB's (pre-InBev) "100% Share of Mind" program back in the late 1990's - they were giving financial "encouragement" for their independent wholesalers to drop other brands. Britos has made similar comments in recent years. BoO currently also distributes Sierra Nevada products, while the wholly-owned AB Sales of Louisville lists only AB and AB releated brands. I'd imagine it is likely AB would drop SN if/when they purchase BoO.
I think the problem would arise if they suppressed the non AB brands until the distribution contract was up. If ab is allowed to do it, I think all breweries should be able to self distribute. Ab of Louisville isn't having much luck keeping competing brands off the shelves in the area where they distribute.
