Fremantle market - evictions and heartbreak

When Richard Murphy and Colin Wright took on the role as spokesmen for the Fremantle Market stallholders they had no idea of the grief and personal loss to come. This was a voluntary, unpaid position and they were both elected by the stallholders as ideal candidates. Both had operated successful businesses within the market for more than twenty years; they are intelligent, rational, objective, astute and fair negotiators.

Originally, and probably now with hindsight - naively, they expected their role to be representative of the stallholders point of view in matters concerning the smooth operation of the markets. It was never meant to be adversarial, in fact quite the opposite, they could sort out most minor issues on the ground and save management being involved or speak for the collective and negotiate with management. To a very large degree they acted as mentors and advisors to the stallholders.

They never wanted to act as critics or antagonists by any means. Ideally they would work with management and local council as part of a team to maintain or improve a highly successful retail business, tourism icon, heritage building and real estate asset.

The council needed to work on behalf of the ratepayers and care for the heritage aspect and physical structure of the building; its tourism status and commercial viability. It should have positioned itself as the main body or major stakeholder in the three part enterprise. The Murdoch management held the main lease on the Market which made their role primarily landlord and administrators. The stallholders input should have been in regard to customer requirements and satisfaction and the smooth running of the retail and service side of things.

The stallholders pushed hard to be part of a working group so that the three parties could get together on a regular basis and exchange ideas. When the new lease was signed off the stallholders found they had not been included as a voice in the new working group.

For reasons unknown and incomprehensible to anyone, including a number of commercial lawyers, the new lease appears to give the Murdoch’s full power and the council very little if any recourse. Although the lease was drawn up after much discussion, many promises and grand ideas nothing was committed to paper.

There were approximately 150 independent businesses operating under the Market roof. Most had paid tens of thousands of dollars for their businesses and many have been there for more than 10 years. These are the people who have created and nurtured repeat custom and are the real reason the markets evolved into such a phenomenal success. They understand customer relations, pricing, marketing, promotion, display, atmosphere, product and service supply, demand and competition.

Overall the markets have never and will never be a matter of bricks and mortar or administration. The markets exist only to the service of the customer.

The very obvious and most destructive element at the moment is the Murdoch’s delusional grandeur and posturing as The Boss of the Minions. The attitude that the stallholders are disposable ‘workers’ makes us wonder if they actually believe that they run a third world sweat shop. Even in their presentation they said they had never ‘sacked’ a stallholder. Was that a Freudian slip or an insight into their opinion of themselves? Well, let’s be clear about this: landlords don’t sack anyone; stallholders are not unpaid employees. They might argue that they meant to say that they hadn’t EVICTED anyone - but then that would be a lie.

When Richard Murphy (a previous surveyor) disputed the Murdoch’s estimate of his stall measurement and questioned the insecurity of the new lease proposal he sought legal advice. As president of the stallholder association he had every right to challenge and define the legal implications of what appeared to be a rather dodgy document.

He was evicted.

And the Murdoch’s might give all kinds of reasons now for that eviction but at the time he was evicted without explanation. I doubt that anyone else would argue that he wasn’t victimised and persecuted for one reason only: he was too effective as the stallholders’ champion.

In a democratic system, in a land of free speech and social justice this is diabolical. This is akin to sacking a Union leader. In mainstream workplaces this would be illegal and Unions throughout the country would have closed down shop. But once again the new lease proved that everyone is vulnerable and no one is protected.

When Colin Wright stepped into Richard’s position he was well aware that he risked the same treatment. Ethically, he could not back down. Very few people would be aware of the hours he worked; the thousands of phone calls, the meetings, reports, the out of pocket expenses, the research and overall stress and heartache he endured.

Colin Wrights shop was probably one of the most popular and most profitable shops in the markets. He could afford the higher rents and he could have kept quiet and continued a successful business. Richard Murphy and Mark Scott were also running successful businesses. It was never about self-interest but the integrity of the markets and the fair treatment of everyone.

Communication with the Murdoch’s became impossible. The only course of action was to address the council and hold them accountable for signing off on the lease. They had dug themselves into a hole and by the time they sat up and took notice most of them were astounded at the repercussions unfolding and the indifferent and belligerent response by the Murdoch’s.

Initially, half the councillors were fiercely opposed to re-signing the lease with the Murdoch’s. Others were not convinced but reached a stalemate and reluctantly swayed under legal advice. Ex mayor Tagliaferri seemed very pro Murdoch for reasons unknown but highly speculated about. When the Shit hit the fan Tagliaferri retreated. He ended up losing his campaign in the by-elections and gained himself immense negative media attention. Outside of council offices you would be hard pressed to find anyone who wouldn’t say they screwed up big time.

Throughout it all the biggest problem was that the council would have had to deem themselves responsible and accountable and in effect the council lawyers were being asked to find themselves at fault. Legally this could have exploded, so understandably, it was never in their interest to find fault with the lease, and without doing that, the lease became ironclad. Long term, the council is stuck with the Murdoch’s for near on twenty more years and pretty powerless in a volatile partnership.

Anyway, that’s their problem now. Although, from the sideline, I might just point out that truck loads of money have been spent by the Murdoch’s and the Council and although they have treated the stallholders as the enemy they really should be grateful for the education they have both received this early in the game. Ironically, if the council had been more open to constructive criticism and the research done by the stallholders they probably should have paid them for this work. If they had not been so defensive and had listened to their predictions they would have saved themselves a lot of money, a lot of heartache and public embarrassment.

As for the Murdoch’s, I imagine that their ineffective market research and legal costs would be so substantial that had they have been more honest and ethical right from the beginning they could have paid out the few stalls that they wanted to remove and not only would that have given them smooth access but would have saved them the expose of their reputation as well as their almighty $’s.

Much of this has been said before, but I wanted to recap because this month the saga has hit an all time low. The vindictive actions of these nasty little creatures have stunned the Port City with the news that Colin Wright has now also been evicted.

It seems very obvious to me and others that the timing has been very well calculated for maximum impact. Knowing full well that pre-Christmas is the most profitable time of year for the stallholders, to evict someone on the 30th of November just shows how spiteful these people are. In normal circumstances retailers would invest as much money as they could afford to buy in their Christmas stock.

As disgusting as this is, it was also predictable so no, Colin was not caught out. But many others were hit up with notice to sign on or move out and this week-end at least six people have been forced to walk away. Unbelievably, they have been offered, or actually been manipulated into signing, what is nothing more than a month to month tenancy.

Let’s be very clear about one fact: Colin Wright has been evicted for speaking up for and on behalf of the majority of vulnerable and intimidated stallholders. He has never acted out of self interest and his words have always been the words of the collective. Getting rid of Colin or getting rid of the association does NOT get rid of the anger, resentment or the complaints to come.

It is also very obvious that the other people being forced out this week, and previously, have been those who have supported the stallholders association. Mark Scott has been a much loved market character who has mentored most of the fruit and vegetable traders over a span of more than twenty years. He has worked as the unofficial ‘go to guy’ and has done much to promote and improve the markets. Last year the Murdoch’s didn’t mind taking a photo opportunity with Mark to bask in his success and award for trader of the year. Ann Meyers didn’t mind calling on Scotty when she needed support or advice when she first started out either. Both she and the Murdoch’s have now shafted him -they have refused to offer him the 5 year agreement that they promised.

There are so many stories that I would love to write about to allow people to really see what has taken place, but as many are identifiable, I can not break their confidence at this point. Many people have been forced to walk away and have lost their investment, have been left with unsold stock and without an income. Some don’t have the luxury of leaving with nothing. These people have families and mortgages and unpaid bank loans. To walk away would mean certain bankruptcy and their only option is to sign onto another lease, pray they can manage the high rents, hope they might break even or sell out and try to make enough to walk away someday - managing their loses.

When you hear the Murdoch’s make statements like most of the stallholders have happily accepted the rent rises or some people have chosen to leave, I just want to slap them.

I would challenge anyone to ask the 30, yes that is 30, stallholders who have ‘chosen to leave’ WHY? You might also ask the 6 leaving this week why they would choose to leave a month before Christmas after investing in additional Christmas stock.

I also take offense at Ann Meyer's in this week’s newsletter when she expresses her cheerio and good wishes to Gloria; stating that Gloria has sold her business and moved on. Actually, there has been a few references to people having sold their business but never once has it been mentioned as to how much less than value it has been sold for; how much each of those people have lost. Gloria had no choice – she wasn’t offered a new agreement.

Nothing is said about the people who have paid for a business, which has now been relocated into a smaller space, in a lower traffic area, and has lost the right to on-sell their lease or goodwill. Robbed of a business but compromised into a shadow of hope. These are ‘the happy’ ones.

One lawyer stated he had been contacted by eight stallholders in one week; three had been terminated without negotiation or notice.

Jamie Murdoch claimed that 15 of the 20 stallholder who had left this year had sold their licenses for an average of $40,000. Again it is 30 stallholders that have left, a good number are there on monthly tenancies and planning to pull out or are probably going to be forced out. This outrageous statement can be easily disputed by asking the X-stallholders for the correct figures and if anyone did sell for $40,000 then it is also worth asking how much they lost. I don’t think selling out for forty grand is much to sing about if the seller paid seventy grand to buy it.

Let’s also talk about the accuracy of Jamie’s statement that the Wednesday’s growers market was “A successful trial”. Let’s ask those stallholders who invested in the plans, promises and propaganda of that venture if they were aware they were investing in a trial. Successful? It lasted about 6 weeks and it was an abysmal failure.

Or the claim that closing down Friday night trade was based on ‘research’ and had also has been a trial.

We have it in black and white that the markets would not trade on Thursday and yet here it is again dressed up as a Christmas trial. Then there were the opening and closing hours on trial; the sheer stupidity of closing Friday nights but opening early on Sunday mornings. The only person who would have had any customers would have been the girl selling coffee to the other stallholders who sat around in the cold waiting for customers to arrive at the usual time. Did I mention that Ann’s daughter owns that coffee shop? (A prime location fortuned to her after only a few months trading when normally it would take years. – I would love to know how much rent She pays?)

I guess if your market research consists of asking the new coffee seller if it was worth opening earlier in the morning and closing Friday nights she would probably agree. My guess is that not too many people are looking for caffeine late in the day but probably business is very good for a captive early morning crowd of stallholders.

No one I spoke to recalls being asked if they thought they should close down Friday night. In fact, I hear there was disbelief and outrage from the stallholders and the customers.

Anne claims she discussed closing with stallholders and was surprised that those same people objected when she followed through. They tell me that she didn’t say she was planning on closing, she asked how business was and many said it was slow. They thought it was casual chit-chat and they meant slow compared to other years. She never stated that she was researching the viability of being open and she later acted like they had deliberately misled her.

This week she issued a newsletter entitled Bollocks and sarcastically claimed that some stallholders were speaking disrespectfully of the Murdoch management. Jamie has also made public statements which lamented that the stallholders were casting aspersions on their reputation. Ha! They are wiping the floor with people, destroying lives and have bought heartaches and devastation into the city and yet they blame the publicity. No, they blame the stallholders for the publicity. Poor babies, they feel they are being bullied – Boo Hoo.

NOTE: You have been exposed and put under a spotlight and we see who you are. That IS your reputation. No one is doing anything to you - we are all just observing. Everything that I have said, the press has said, the stallholders have said - is all on record and can all be checked and double checked. Your reputation is directly related to your actions and your word.

I am pleading with people to seek legal advice before signing any agreement with these people. It is always good business practice to understand the fine print in a lease and it’s essential with this one.

Although the Murdoch’s have made grand statements about the new restoration work and renovations, I am amazed that more people have not asked how business will be trading whilst that work is being carried out. What does a lease mean if you are entombed in scaffolding? Will customers be wearing hard hats? It seems clear to me that it will be impossible for anyone to trade for some months while this work is being done. It’s obvious that there is not space for relocation and I can’t see that it can happen without stalls being put out of business for a matter of months. Has anyone even seen the plans? If people are setting up and equipping businesses now will they be dismantled soon? Will those fittings and fixtures work in the new version or are stallholders expected to refit all over again if they make it back.

The council estimated over $4million dollars worth of works a few years back but since then there has been mention that it might be much greater than that. Sounds like very substantial work to me. I won’t even go into how or why the council or really the ratepayers ended up footing the bill for this, when clearly, it is primarily to the advantage of the Murdoch’s. Why? Has anyone even done the sums? I can see that while the Murdoch’s will be making huge profits the ratepayers will be waiting at least a decade before they see a cent of rent from the Murdoch’s. That is, if the markets are still operating in ten years; could be a very expensive white elephant.

It still remains perplexing that the city didn’t take control from the beginning and then re-lease it after the work was complete. If the council had taken control then, all of the profit could have gone towards the restoration and been paid for in a fraction of the time.

Do the ratepayers even know that more than 4+ million of their dollars are going into the markets and that the council has very little power to ensure that the markets are well run or even viable as a long term business?

Well, it’s worth thinking about if anyone cares, but right now, I can see that the people who have cared and did try to do something are the ones who will be under the guillotine this week-end.

To Richard Murphy, Colin Wright, Mark Scott and the stallholders who can’t be named yet - we thank you.

To Les Lauder, Donna Haney, John Dowson, Georgie Adeane, Shirley Mackay, Alice King and Bill Massie we thank you. Also a special thanks to the other councillors who jumped on board a little late but at least you stood up.

To the Fremantle Herald, especially Jenny Danger - we thank you.

Adele Carles, Annie St James, Paul Masten, Rod Hagar, and the people of Fremantle – we thank you.

To John and Jamie Murdoch, Ann Meyer, Phil Dawson, Robert Fittock, Freo Council legal team and Peter Tagliaferri – shame on you all.

To Mayor Brad Pettitt – Good luck.

http://sonyagreen.blogspot.com/