2am Lock Out Claims AnotherScalp

www.samesame.com.au

About the Author

Joal

view my other 559 articles

Wed 24th Jun, 2009 in Local News

34
0
1250

Want some evidence of how the 2am lock-out is affecting our venues? Reports this morning indicate that the Oxford Hotel on Taylor Square has gone into receivership, and owners blame the 2am lock out.

By now you’ve probably experienced the effects of Sydney’s selective 2am lock out. Unable to ‘club-hop’ into the early hours of the morning, maybe you’ve been separated from friends after accidentally stepping outside, not to be let back in. Well, now venues are starting to really experience the bite of Sydney’s lock out laws.

The Sydney Morning Herald has reported that the Oxford Hotel, the Vegas Hotel, Mansions Hotel in Kings Cross, and the Peakhurst Inn, all part of the Landmark Leisure Group, have gone into receivership.

Tony Woodward, part owner of the four hotels, told the SMH that the period of the lock out, 2am to 6am, used to be “very buoyant.” And it appears Oxford Street’s Oxford, which includes Gilligan’s, The Polo Club and Supper Club, is one of the hardest hit. Chief executive Jason Gavin told the SMH that the primarily gay venue turns away up to 150 patrons every Saturday night, and the other venues anywhere between 40 and 140 patrons.

Receivership for the hotel group means BankWest has taken charge of the hotels until it can recover the $90 million debt that it is owed.

When representatives from The Oxford were contacted this morning, they said they were unable to make comment on the effect receivership will have on the operation of the popular venue.

Nobody has hearted this, be the first Be the first!

Comments

www.samesame.com.au

arrow left

Add Another | View all the comments in forum »

9973

sydbloke said on the 24th Jun, 2009

SMH today reports that four hotels part owned by Tony Woodward, including the Oxford, have been placed in to receivership. What does this mean for the Oxford?? The owner blames the 2am lockout, read the article here.

Personally I think the Oxford has gone downhill since the big re-fit and the attempt to broaden it's market with the additional venues above and below the main bar, they just tried too hard killing any atmosphere the place had.

leverarchfile

leverarchfile said on the 24th Jun, 2009

no it wont close the bank just wants to reduce its exposure, it will most probably be sold unless the receiver thinks it can trade out

Barrin said on the 24th Jun, 2009

Interesting what they say about the 2am lockout. If it affects more pubs then maybe the Hotels Association will be in a stronger position to lobby for its removal.

zebra-stripes said on the 24th Jun, 2009

Yeah I'd sooner suggest they managed their business poorly and over spent on certain things. Oxford St is probably the most saturated strip in Australia for gay stuff, the winters are hard to survive unless you know your market and cater to them.

Grumpy

Grumpy said on the 24th Jun, 2009

"Some industry figures questioned Mr Woodward's claim that the lockout was to blame for the pubs' financial woes, suggesting a fiercely competitive market and high debt were to blame."

$90 million debt accross 4 pubs - there's ya answer. Not the lockout.

musicman

musicman said on the 24th Jun, 2009

Actually every time we have visited the Oxford, we found the music so load and unpleasant - we left for somewhere we could talk and hear each other. The pub has had a bit of an identity crisis after its renovation. So maybe its not all lock out to blame?

honey-prawns

honey-prawns said on the 24th Jun, 2009

the renovation looked like it was designed by Blanche Devereaux, especially that patchwork thing on the wall
http://bugginword.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/blanchedeveraux.jpg

nylonfootys said on the 24th Jun, 2009

hey guys i managed the oxford for a year and i was so happy to leave it after that long , theirs alot i can not say about the place and upper management , but i will say everything revolved around Money they didnt care about the gay community either .

genkij

genkij said on the 24th Jun, 2009

We gotta Fight for our right To PAAAAARRRRR- TTTTTAAAAAEEEEEEEE !!

Stevie Boy said on the 24th Jun, 2009

A load of crap. It has nothing to do with the lockout. As the industry insider referred to in the article suggested, it has a lot more to do with heavy debt and competition than the lockouts. Now if they'd just apply the lockout to venues like Havana and Courthouse we would see an instant improvement on Oxford Street

deamesuk

deamesuk said on the 24th Jun, 2009

Typical bonehead Sydney publicans pour millions of dollars into making a passable boozer a grim sterile hole. Good riddance.

mjm078 said on the 25th Jun, 2009

The 2am lock outs cannot be blamed for the inability to repay a $90M debt. That's very long stretch....

TheOldie

TheOldie said on the 25th Jun, 2009

There was an article a few weeks back about the Banks running Pubs that had gone got into trouble and it was better for the Bank to keep them going till things can be worked out or things got better. Sounds like its industry wide and those hotels
didnt sound like they had 2am lock outs etc.

Cameron M

Cameron M said on the 25th Jun, 2009

I am really sad to see this happening, especially to a venue that is such an integral part of The Strip. The lockout is such a backhanded slap to society. It's a constant reminder that we aren't being treated as adults; rather we are perceived and treated as a group of people who need constant control. And how offensive and arbitrary is it to have a list of rules placed on bars - in SELECTED venues only - that further control our drinking habits. More policing? No thanks. I'd prefer a shift in community mentality: a more responsible attitude prevalent amongst people venturing out onto the scene. Too many rules create dissidence. This is why the current changes have backfired.

Stevie Boy said on the 25th Jun, 2009

People would be treated like adults if they would act like adults. Take a walk down Oxford Street or through Kings Cross on a Saturday night and it's like a war zone. I see very few people acting like adults. The behaviour is more like animals.

The fact is that there are many areas that place restrictions on drinking, not just Australia. Both America and Canada have alcohol cut-off times in their bars and clubs. In most States venues can't serve alcohol beyond 2am and even in New York it is 4am. What makes you think we should have completely unrestricted use of alcohol in Australia considering the significant negative impact it has on the community?

Also there is nothing to suggest the current changes have backfired. According to Police the new rules have had a significant impact

TheOldie

TheOldie said on the 26th Jun, 2009

Must say I agree with Cameron on why the restrictions and we are adults etc etc etc

but totally agree with Stevie Boy. If they cant control their own drinking and then go out and cause all the problems whether violence or just turning up at the Emergency wards etc then where do you suggest we start if not the 2am lock out ?

Travel to the US a lot.......... and have been out and ordered a drink at 1:50am only to almost have it ripped out of our hands at 2:01am ! couldnt believe it.

Can only assume the list of bars in selected areas are those with the problem ? and sure the list may include bars that shouldn't be there and some that should.

How do we get a shift in community mentality ? the tv ads must not be working ?

I work with 3 people who are like this although they dont cause violence nor
have used the Emergency Wards they have still got thrown out of places, refused
entry etc and yet week after week they come into the office , sick, running to the toilet to vomit, dropping pain killers, drinking V and just laughing about the night before and often go and do it the very next night all over again. Its like a competition amongst them to see who can get hammered the quickest. I truly dont understand their mentality on that.

zebra-stripes said on the 26th Jun, 2009

Well said Stevie Boy

If we were all so proper, there would be no laws at all

Phazz

Phazz said on the 26th Jun, 2009

Clearly it's because of alcopops. Let's find another revenue raiser.

Cameron M

Cameron M said on the 26th Jun, 2009

Stevie Boy I understand what you're saying, and that similar laws exist elsewhere, but I would go further and say that anywhere these laws exist is over policed. Check out Europe - drinking laws are relatively lax, children are allowed to drink wine with their meals from a young age, and when they grow up they handle alcohol astoundingly well.

Don't believe me? Go to Spain. There is no such thing as a "nip" or 30mL pour in their country - spirits are FREE POURED into the glass, and often it's difficult to get less than a triple in the glass. As a foreigner, I had a very difficult time handling it - two drinks and I was too drunk to function. But the Spaniards, having grown up without incredibly overbearing restrictions, managed it well.

It seems like we're stuck in a "what came first, the chicken or the egg?" cycle. Are people behaving irresponsibly as a way of lashing out at these laws, or are these laws in place to control the general population who are inherently irresponsible with or without restrictive laws in place? Call me naive, but I still believe it's a case of the former rather than the latter.

Anyway, as the laws are currently in place, the question is now - how do we change the situation to make it better?

TheOldie

TheOldie said on the 26th Jun, 2009

Stevie Boy I understand what you're saying, and that similar laws exist elsewhere, but I would go further and say that anywhere these laws exist is over policed. Check out Europe - drinking laws are relatively lax, children are allowed to drink wine with their meals from a young age, and when they grow up they handle alcohol astoundingly well.

Don't believe me? Go to Spain. There is no such thing as a "nip" or 30mL pour in their country - spirits are FREE POURED into the glass, and often it's difficult to get less than a triple in the glass. As a foreigner, I had a very difficult time handling it - two drinks and I was too drunk to function. But the Spaniards, having grown up without incredibly overbearing restrictions, managed it well.

It seems like we're stuck in a "what came first, the chicken or the egg?" cycle. Are people behaving irresponsibly as a way of lashing out at these laws, or are these laws in place to control the general population who are inherently irresponsible with or without restrictive laws in place? Call me naive, but I still believe it's a case of the former rather than the latter.

Anyway, as the laws are currently in place, the question is now - how do we change the situation to make it better?

I think the bad behaviour came first then followed the laws. Have been going out on Oxford St since about 1979 and yes you had people getting drunk and some who got obliterated but never to the degree it has now.
Every upcoming generation lashes out to break free etc but just seems the last few generations its purely to binge drink with more women doing it as well.
I cant stand Oxford St on a Sat night and havent been for ages and once made the mistake of having breakfast with a friend on Oxford St one Sunday morning and the
drunks/druggies just hanging around not going home was ugly.

Who knows what the answer is but suppose they have to start somewhere but the
2am thing made no sense to me as you can obliterate yourself well before then so you're just moving the problem from a later time to an earlier time it seems to me ?

zebra-stripes said on the 26th Jun, 2009

Keep in mind the lockouts are under review, and have been going through a trial period anyway

One of the reasons they came about because our hospitals were under too much pressure, not just to stop us from being fabulous

Stevie Boy said on the 26th Jun, 2009

I don't think you could argue that people are behaving irresponsibly as a way of lashing out at these laws. Especially considering the fact that only 6 months ago in NSW and most of Australia there were virtually no restrictions on venues that serve alcohol whatsoever. 24 hour trading and no limits to the amount of licensed venues in an area. Only 6 months ago did they bring in the 2am lockout laws which only target a very small number of venues. Considering the fact that the behaviour of people out on the street has become increasingly worse over the last few years I hardly thing you can blame laws for causing the problems

Brave Leon

Brave Leon said on the 26th Jun, 2009

I'm in hotel management and work very closely with those at Oxford and really feel for them at the moment. In the current financial climate its not a good time to have such uncertainty but that is the situation in the hospitality industry in NSW at the moment thanks to over regulation and enforcement. All businesses, not only hotels, carry debt and while this might be a contributing factor the venue was doing very well and had no financial issues prior to the 2am lockouts so raising this as an issue is really a bit of a red herring. Oxford is an iconic gay pub and many of us have great memories of late night fun there, we should be supporting them now. Oxford St will not be the same without it. The 2am lockout, 10 minute time outs, naming and shaming of venues as 'violent' (what a joke, I see more issues on the street walking to Oxford St than I ever do in any venue when I get there) has done a lot to destroy the reputation of some of our best night spots. Its time for a review and a better way of moving forward.

Rich 300 said on the 26th Jun, 2009

The Oxford Group may have had too much debt however the 2AM lockout certainly is a very significant issue. If you think that the 2AM lockout is not having a significant impact on affected venues then you would be kidding yourself. Whether you like certain venues or not, it does not negate the damage that the 2AM lockout is having on the affected venues. If it does eventually lead to a reduction in alcohol related violence then it will be because the whole community, and not just those who misbehave, has been denied the ability to attend the venues that they choose to and those venues are quite likely to come into difficulties like the Oxford Group have as the community have no choice but to attend other venues despite the fact that they may have preferred to go somewhere else.
The decision of Nathan Rees to impose the 2am lockout on certain venues is having the unintended effect of changing where the public goes to enjoy themselves. Previously less popular venues are being favoured simply due to the lockout restrictions placed on others. This is not because they are any better and in many cases are less safe than those with the restrictions.
Your favourite venue could be the next to encounter difficulties with resultant issues for staff, dj�s ,performers ,entertainers and patrons.

zebra-stripes said on the 26th Jun, 2009

Point is, you can't blame $90,000,000 on the lockouts.

People are drinking more than ever. So what if we lose one of the many venues.

Rich 300 said on the 26th Jun, 2009

Point is, you can't blame $90,000,000 on the lockouts.

People are drinking more than ever. So what if we lose one of the many venues.

Slide doesn't even attempt to cater for the easy 5am crowd drug crowd. Instead it actually participates in the community.

I agree ,you can not blame the lockout for the debt level however you can blame it for the venues inability to repay it.

You may say what if we lose one of many venues but this may be the tip of the iceberg. If this were the last venue would you be happy?

It is funny that you mention Slide as I believe that despite the fact that Slide does not have the imposition of the 2am lockout , it is having it's own issues caused by the 2am lockout on other venues. They are having some difficulties keeping there crowd as patrons move to get into venues that have the 2am lockout. Again another unintended consequence.

Please explain said on the 26th Jun, 2009

$90m lost since the lock out ? surely not.

in this day and age its hard to swallow being told what you can and cannot do. But
a friend at St Vincents said you wouldn't believe what its like with overdoses and drunks arriving all night long so guess they had to try something.

So what else do you suggest they try ? and asking this in a nice way not a sarcastic
way :)

Rich 300 said on the 26th Jun, 2009

$90m lost since the lock out ? surely not.

in this day and age its hard to swallow being told what you can and cannot do. But
a friend at St Vincents said you wouldn't believe what its like with overdoses and drunks arriving all night long so guess they had to try something.

So what else do you suggest they try ? and asking this in a nice way not a sarcastic
way :)

Thanks for your pleasant reply :)

I believe that $90m was the size of the loan that the group has which was quoted in the paper. It is not the amount that they have lost due to the lockout.

Alcohol related violence is a serious issue that does need to be addressed. I think that there has to be some way of changing patron behaviour. It is too late to address the problem after violence occurs. The present situation is not working and is punishing those that have not done anything wrong.

As has been done successfully in other parts of the country like Geelong and Perth, I think that a system that identify people that misbehave and puts destrictions on them would go a long way to change there behaviour.

For example, if say Johnny goes down to the local bar and makes a clown of himself and I don't mean has a great time and hurts nobody but really does act in a way that is dangerous to himself and the public then Johnny should suffer the consequences. It maybe decided that he can not go to any licenced establishment for say 6 months.

While Johnny is sitting at home for those 6 months not being able to go out and have a good time with his mates he will be thinking twice about how he behaves. Not only that Johnny's mates will be thinking, gee poor Johnny.....I don't want to be back at home watching the TV with him so I better not misbehave either. If Johnny offends again he may be excluded from attending licenced premises for longer or banned for good.

In addition Johnny may also be required to attend a course in responsible drinking or some other measure to help him realise his mistakes before he ends up in front of a Judge and hurts himself or others.

I guess this system is a little like how the government has reduced unsafe driving practises. If you commit too many offences then you lose your right to drive.

If Johnny continues to behave poorly then he will lose his right to go to Licenced Premises. This would save the community from Johnny and Johnny from himself.

I think that this would have a significant impact at addressing individual behaviour in the community just as it has in Geelong and some areas of Perth.:)

zebra-stripes said on the 26th Jun, 2009

Not a bad idea, Rich 300

Probably easier to implement in smaller towns

Thing is, Sydneys issues are also about the volume of traffic... it's not just individual local trouble makers... it's also the inevitable drama caused when you get so many people drunk in close proximity.

Please explain said on the 26th Jun, 2009

Thanks Rich 300.

I agree re the person copping it.

Have always thought with these idiots that speed etc should be given mandatory sentence of reporting to an Emergency Ward or with the Ambo drivers to witness
what can happen. Shock them !

Same for the binge drinkers.......... stop them from going to pubs/clubs and make them also go out with the Ambos or go to an Emergency Ward and make them say clean up the mess from the people as they arrive but also to be there and not in the way of course to see what happens.

I read an article on some Asian country ......... Korea ? where those who do wrong were put on things like road side clean ups/ street clean ups and they had to all wear orange clothes so everyone knew about them and apparently the sheer embarrassement meant that most never did anything wrong again.

genkij

genkij said on the 26th Jun, 2009

ACTION was a victem ....

mikeb

mikeb said on the 28th Jun, 2009

[Personally I think the Oxford has gone downhill since the big re-fit and the attempt to broaden it's market with the additional venues above and below the main bar, they just tried too hard killing any atmosphere the place had.

totally agree the place sux !

Perfect Day

Perfect Day said on the 1st Jul, 2009

Hi Guys,

This reminds me of a post I put up earlier regarding how Gilligans had changed once Oxford had been renovated, leading me to create a new day club. I was amused at the the time of renovations, why there was such a massive renovation in the first place? I believed the atmosphere was great at the old Gilligans, it was really a good day club. It had the right mix. I loved going there. The new renovations changed that mix, they did not suit the environment, and Gilligans was no more. The stairwells took up all the space, it was no longer cosy. I think this, along with their debt, is why they are in trouble.

Perfect Day is a new day club, that is thriving in the worst economic climate conditions. It is proof that clubs and bars can succeed with the right mix of music, atmosphere and community spirit.

I cannot tell you how many times, I have happy patrons saying 'Thankgod' you exist. We wanted something like this open a long time ago. They are now coming evey weekend after 12 midday and enjoy catching up with friends, having a smoke in the large courtyard and listening to the best house music Sydneys leading DJ's have to offer.

Basically you have to give the community what it wants. I honestly believe the community wants more variety and more choices, choices created for them, not the other way around.

Cheers,

Perfect Day

damiendoes

damiendoes said on the 1st Jul, 2009

i used to love the Oxford before the renovations. don't mind it so much now but i don't understand why it went downhill. interesting to read these comments though.how can it be fixed?