Fremantle markets - fair suck of the sav

Oh Jamie, “Fair suck of the sav old mate”. A little Aussie slang we little people use as an exclamation of incredulity. Truly, I was gobsmacked at your Feb ’10 report. (Interestingly, this report was only handed out to selected tenants: why?)

Quote:
“We have seen outgoing tenants working hard to generate negative publicity for the Markets, and to deliver on a prominent ex-stallholders promise to ‘do as much damage as possible before we go.’ In this they have received a lot of support from certain Councillors who should know better. The very public campaign against Fremantle Markets that has been waged by these people through the media, the internet, public protests and misguided comment in Council Chambers has had a negative impact on attendance numbers, and this is unconscionable*.

Be very clear – some outgoing tenants and misguided Councillors have demonstrated by their actions that they do not give a damn about the future of Fremantle Markets or the welfare of the current stallholders. They would like nothing more than to see the Markets fail.”

Oh dear, everyone in the world is conspiring against your good will and genius visions.

Facts:
When Donaldson and Murdoch Seniors ran the markets they were popular, successful, profitable to all parties and world renowned.

They did not compete nor compare with others. They were iconic within their own uniqueness.

Leases were frivolous but behind them was a ‘gentlemen’s agreement’ or a handshake that gave many security of tenure which held for twenty or more years.

No one needed to wear a name tag to contrive an insincere relationship with customers.

Stallholders mentored and nurtured each other and worked as a community within a community. No marketing guru will ever formulate or sell this X factor – it evolved over many, many years and included the hearts and personality of real people.

Previous management knew not to try and fix what wasn’t broken. Businesses relied on customer feedback for direction. Quite simply, if it didn’t sell, the business folded. Books do not teach anyone how to read a customer – only experience does.

Markets by definition must be good value for money with lots of atmosphere and offer an exhibition style of shopping. You have engineered it into a structured and disconnected meccano set. You can’t even figure out your trading hours.

Instead of supporting or protecting your tenants you have repeatedly bought in competitors who not only fail but take other well established businesses down with them.

You have relocated stalls into inappropriate positions and that has made it impossible for them to trade. They are a good number of the people who have been forced out of business and you have further robbed them of the right to sell what would have been a substantial amount of goodwill for a previously good business.

You have bullied people into dismissing their staff and you have demanded that some stop stocking some of their most popular lines. In some cases you have allowed others to then take on those same lines.

People have signed onto a long term lease believing they could sell the security of that only to find that you are now offering free entry into other vacant stalls. The promised security of tenure has now become a shackle.

The nepotistic advantages afforded Ms M's daughter has created a lot of acrimony and greatly disadvantaged the other coffee shop and to some degree other traders. This covert destruction and manipulation is being closely watched…

You doubled rents, increased outgoings, reduced advertising, relocated and reduced stall sizes. In doing this you forced product prices up and lost customers as well as successful traders. Some claim that this is now having a negative impact on other businesses throughout Fremantle.

You have even changed the nature of the markets - the very thing that made it a market.

On your one month to decide to “take it or leave it lease” many were unable to sell but in the few exceptions almost all of them who managed to sell, sold at less than cost. You had the audacity to write a cheerio in your newsletters making mention that they had sold and moved on. Truth: you forced them to sell out – they lost their livelihoods, their much loved business and their goodwill as well as most of their initial investment. Not to mention that most walked out with nothing at all.

Almost 25% of the stallholders have gone since you took on the new lease. A greater percentage of customers have also disappeared. Probable reason: they think the market is crap now!

Ann Meyer acts as your ventriloquist dummy and as irritating and disruptive as she is it is still your deeds which she does. You are backing her now but I suspect that she will be the fall guy when the ‘nice us up’ campaign gets underway. You are slick and you are in damage control. Miss M had better remember the many stallholders who backed you, campaigned and promoted for you - who you have now betrayed, dismissed and finacially devestated. Beware Miss M - the nature of the beast.

You sat in council and took names of all the people who had something to say about the predictable outcome of your megalomaniacal overtake. All but one or two of those people have since been shafted. You have systematically culled the people who opposed your ideas. They were right in their predictions and had you have been more open minded you would have realized that they were working to protect stallholders and trying to prevent this current chaos.

But now, seeing the insolence of your suggestion that stallholders should be entitled to expect you to be:
Helpful, friendly and ready to listen and;
Prepared to counsel, in a positive manner
Or that you ask them to:
Work with us as a team
Listen and respond and;
Avoid negative comment

Holy Moley you actually said:
“If you feel there are areas that need attention within the market please know that we are only a call away, or an email. We will make time to meet you to discuss your concern…We are committed to take all comments seriously.”

Excuse me, but wasn’t that what the stallholders association was all about? Do you honestly think that after the public flogging they received that there is anyone brave enough to offer any view that is not in line with your own dogma. Glaringly obvious, is the high rent. Do you wish to discuss this or can we take your quote from your Guru John Stanley’s website, “Jamie Murdoch, one of our clients in Fremantle, has just discovered a great article on “Only Losers Cut Their Prices”. Sounds pretty set in concrete to me….Discuss anything but the outrageous rents - the real issue!

This and your continued assertions that the rent is justified is ridiculous* when as soon as a rival and cheaper market was put on the drawing board you bleated something to the effect that stallholders would walk away on a daily basis. How can that be, I ask sarcastically, when you have said over and over it’s just a matter of ‘more professional traders’ Surly a new market housing your ‘cast offs’ is of no threat to your empire?

You talk about bullying in the workplace and yet most of the people there are intimidated by the victimization of all those who have been evicted or bullied into walking away. Such tensions currently exist that at least two assaults have occurred within the markets; bitchy and sarcastic comments are rife and even Ms M and Councillors have mentioned intimidation and feeling threatened – such is your leadership. This is all about you or because of you. How dare you suggest that ex-stallholders are ‘the trouble makers’? Let’s remind you once again that it was You who threatened to run the markets into the ground if You didn’t get what You wanted. You created bad blood with councillors and between stallholders and You gave the press the stories to write - they simply recorded your actions. There is a huge difference between retaliation and aggression – don’t you dare boo hoo when people push back!

Talk about intimidation, you have wiped the floor with the very people who fed you for most of your life. You glare and posture as people pack up and walk away, having lost everything, and in so many instances you felt the further vindictive need to stand security guards nearby to intimidate or humiliate; you changed locks prior to vacation, you made access difficult and gave limited time and extra pressure to get out. You didn’t even afford the decency to offer a note or word of thank you or good wishes.

Even your own parents put energy, effort and expertise into the market. They worked with stallholders to make it the success that it was – the successful enterprise handed to you on a plate. Can’t help but link that to your comment about 'in nature they eat their young!' I wish…

As for your inflammatory comments about ex-stallholders trying to damage either the markets or other stallholders I take strong objection and reiterate the intention has always been to fight you in regard to fair market rent and secure tenure. Reread your press coverage, this blog and the council transcripts – it is there over and over again. Ex-stallholders have lost their businesses and could easily move on without the aggravation but they are still campaigning collectively to fight for the success of Fremantle Markets (as a real market) and the security of all stallholders.

You are trying to suggest that there are 2 camps of stallholders and you are deliberately trying to pit them against each other. We are not so foolish that we don’t see that for what that is. We don’t consider ex stallholders and current stallholders as being on different teams. All stallholders are equally respected; many are very close friends and the new guys are as vulnerable as all of the rest. Our position is also inclusive of the customers and the Fremantle community as a whole.

Oh, and to blame everyone else for the decline in customers is just pathetic. Customers rarely complain officially or verbally, they simply walk away – doesn’t that say something?

You claim that the media, the internet, the public and the council are campaigning against Fremantle Market. What don’t you get? Let me help you with this with a very clear statement; we all loved the market – We dont love greed, ineptitude, arrogence, victimization or betrayal. Where or who is the common denominator?

*Unconscionable: Unusually harsh and shocking to the conscience; that which is so grossly unfair that a court will proscribe it. When a court uses the word unconscionable to describe conduct, it means that the conduct does not conform to the dictates of conscience. In addition, when something is judged unconscionable, a court will refuse to allow the perpetrator of the conduct to benefit.
*Ridiculous (John’s favourite scrabble word)
worthy of or exciting ridicule; absurd, preposterous, laughable, or contemptible

(Im sure all stallholders can drop by the office and ask for the full version of the progress report - in case they missed out on being given one)
For the latest post:
http://sonyagreen.blogspot.com

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/

Fremantle to elect new mayor

Politically, the Fremantle Markets is a big issue. It played a big part in Adele Carles triumphant win in the election earlier this year and not only influenced Mayor Tagliaferri’s embarrassing loss but more importantly forced him into the limelight.

Under such close scrutiny he was forced to show who he really was and what he was really made of. The general consensus is evident by the result.

Now, with the upcoming election for a new mayor the pressure is on again. A few of the present councilors are vying for the job and a lot of soft shoe shuffling is going on. Obviously, aspirants would like to look like they are capable of fixing the market issues. Some have, up until now, shown no interest or indeed opposed intervention and opted for a wait until it goes away approach.

A few outsiders are running for position and might be worthy of consideration. Someone fresh; without Tagliaferri’s influence, personality bias or emotional baggage might be the better option. Michael Martin is looking good at the moment and I would be very interested to hear more of what he has to say.

So far all that has been offered are platitudes and vague definitions. No-one can even get clear about definitions such as;
Security of tenure
Low cost environment
Fair market rent

Let’s just lock in straight forward plans and then work out from there. Follow through, modify, disagree or deny them but stop all the smoke and mirrors and stop pretending to look into it. A real leader must have a strategy and put it into action. If it can’t be done or won’t be done then step up and say so.

A number of points keep being raised but never addressed; let’s start here:

An effective working group; council, management and stallholders working together until decisions are made and carried through. So far meetings appear to be casual chit-chats, stallholders have been excluded, attendance seems optional and nothing constructive has ever happened. There must be quarterly meetings with everyone attending.

Tenancy agreements offer no real security of tenure. What has happened to the 5 year+5 year option? At the moment some stallholders can not sell businesses as FMPL will only offer prospective purchasers a 6 month trial. No one in their right mind would pay out tens of thousands of dollars for a stall with only a 6 month trial period.

Instead of paying out phenomenal fees to lawyers why not compensate businesses which are being forced out? Not only a cheaper and cleaner option but a fairer, faster and easier solution.

Offer and then support a transition period to allow people to modify, sell or reinvent their businesses.

Define what a market is. Much of the redevelopment plans sound like imitating Harrods or David Jones; then it’s a growers market and food emporium; next it’s an arts exhibition - what is it? Previously it has been a bazaar style shopping experience with an emphasis on value for money, eclectic and unique merchandise, vibrant and casual entertainment, artistic and handmade products, busking, exotic smells and heaps of personality and community spirit. It has always been, and successfully so, a leisurely weekend outing. Does the council or the community want to change the nature of the markets?

Robert Fittock. No time to read mail.

I was a bit surprised by last week’s letter to the editor by Cr Robert Fittock. His indifference to the plight of the stallholders has been obvious but to publicly state his desire to get over it and move on shows how oblivious he is to the long term repercussions of the real issues.

When hundreds of public submissions were sent to council protesting against the Murdoch application, he openly stated that he didn’t have time to read all that mail. What does that mean? Is that the attitude we expect from the people we elect to represent us?

The Murdoch’s were granted the lease because they stated:

Commitment to continue to provide a low cost trading environment despite capital expenditure and trading initiatives

At Fremantle Markets, we will create WA's gourmet heaven. A food retailing, entertainment and educational centre that will rival...
More efficient and effective use of the community asset, but retaining existing traditional 3 day trading market.
We support internal changes but only if space is used effectively, maximize stallholder/customer interaction.
Number of stalls must not decrease.
To provide goods and services that exceeds the shopper’s expectations.
To provide quality, range, uniqueness and value for money
Develop range of local produce - uniquely West Australian Goods; handmade on site to encourage interactivity.

It’s easy to see why the stallholders feel betrayed. Rents have increase by around 80%.
They have been relocated to inferior positions, out priced and forced to leave; unable to sell and at a loss of livelihood and goodwill, or evicted.
‘Gourmet Heaven’ is nothing more than food served in paper bags.
Trading hours keep changing.
Artisans have been priced out.
The markets are being sectioned into two separate parts.

Above all else though, the markets are already showing signs of decline and chaos. The new rents will set a new bar for rents throughout Fremantle and the whole community will be picking up the tab in increased prices across the board.

Thankfully, most of the councilors do not take the easy or disinterested view of Cr Fittock. If a business plan is nothing more than paper work with no accountability and promises are meaningless then where does that take the future of Freo?

Deputy John Dowson should stand for mayor of Fremantle

The following questions were asked of Fremantle council at last months meeting. The questions were not really addressed at the time and the stallholders were left feeling no wiser. Funnily enough and quite by accident I found some attempt at answers on this months agenda. (no one was advised that thier response would be delivered via a synopsis on the councils website) . I'm not too sure what most of it means as it's written in that strange language that only politicians seem to understand.

I think I have a reasonable understanding of English but it seems that "Bamboozle English" is becoming a regular and acceptable means of communication and no one is standing up and saying that they expect language to clearly convey a meaning which is easily comprehended by everyone.

It's obvious to me that Bamboozle English is meant to intimidate, confuse and mislead. Look at insurance policies, warranties, legal documents and terms of condition...

Let's all stop pretending we are stupid and insist that communication, especially legal and political, be clear to the audience it is meant to inform!

And while I'm on about the Fremantle council again, let me just state to those few politically motivated people, now appearing to be interested in cleaning up the market mess, your agenda is quite transparent. You were not there in the beginning, you have played under the radar and now step up in your hero tights and think no one remembers you by your past deeds and actions or lack there of.

There is a huge difference between a soft glove massage and true grit.

The upcoming election for a new mayor will be decided by the people, not spin doctored and definitely not Tagliaferri's Johnny-come-lately proteges.

Deputy John Dowson owns that seat. He has the intelligence, experience, class, ethics and dare I say it, THE BALLS to do the job. Most of all he has the respect of his colleagues and the people of Freo. Seems to me though, that those who would best serve in politics are those who have too much heart for politics. Maybe, just maybe, we can encourage him to step up!



RESPONSE TO PREVIOUS PUBLIC QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE

Mr Richard Murphy asked a question in relation to a clause in the Fremantle Markets Head Lease in relation to the protection of the stallholders and asked where that clause came from?

Response: That part of the lease comes from the document provided by the City’s solicitors when putting the document together.

Mr Colin Wright, Secretary of the Fremantle Stallholders Association at the Fremantle Markets, asked the following questions:

1. Does the City have the power to enforce the Markets not to increase rent until the alleged breach has been resolved?

Response: Part of the resolution of the current process requires that no further EOI’s are requested from stallholders and there is no requirement for stallholders to respond to them while the review is taking place. FMPL have sought to increase rents under the old licence agreements and Council has agreed to these where rents have not increased for the last two years.

2. Why has the Working Group ignored the quarterly meetings set up by the Stallholder Association to discuss various issues?

Response: The City has requested that copies of minutes of these meetings be provided to the Group.

3. Mr Wright has been told by the Murdoch's have now identified another 20-30 stalls that are incompatible with the new direction of the markets, what will happen to these stallholders?

Response: The Operating Strategy requires a Plan for the turnover of stalls. The Working Group will address any issues relating to to any changes, if approved in this Plan, through that process.

4. Why have all of these breaches, other than the rent increases, not been addressed as a matter of urgency?

Response: As advised last month to Council, the rent issue is being progressed first and the other matters have been put aside whilst this occurs.

5. Who developed the Terms of Reference? Did the City engage Hochkin Hanly? Why didn't the City prepare the brief?

Response: The Terms of Reference for the independent consultant for the rent review was determined by the Working Group in consultation with our solicitors.

6. Can he get a copy of the Terms of Reference?

Response: A copy of the Terms was emailed to Mr Wright on Thursday 25th June, 2009 – the day following the June Council Meeting.

http://sonyagreen.blogspot.com/

The Missing Mayor

Last nights rally for Richard Murphy and the following meeting of Fremantle Council was inspirational. Politics is not my gig but this one has me completely fascinated. Im not sure if its about Greed, Ego, Personal agendas or Ambition but things are out of control and people are being hurt. Mayor Tagliaferri seems to be largely responsible for the mess that the other councillors are desperately trying to clean up. He has had 18months (and more) to "Look into it" but last night he didn't even bother to chair the meeting.

Green's candidate Adele Carle has only had the story for a little over a week and yet she spent last week end walking the streets, talking with people and arranging a rally. SHE has done more this week than Tag's has done in the last few years.

Expect great things from this girl. Our 6 beautiful, passionate and ethical councillors finally convinced the others to step up and do something - the agreement was unanimous. Tagliaferri is now on his own and has been asked by Deputy Mayor John Dowson to resign.

Colin Wright called for the Eviction of the Murdoch's and the crowd roared in agreement. More on Colin's speech in the following blogs. Below is my little piece - addressed to "The Missing Mayor."

"I was offended by the mayors absence at the last meeting. Tonight, I am glad to see that he is not here again. It just confirms that he acknowledges his redundancy."

The old adage, “Don’t fix what aint broke” should be the catch cry of this fiasco.
.
The Markets have been the jewel in the crown of Fremantle for decades. Popular, profitable, successful, world renowned and much loved.

To take something that is unique, and turn it into something commonplace, is mindboggling.

Regardless of the fair market rent argument, it seems pretty clear that the proposed Market Super Deli is equally responsible for the price hikes. Basically, the current stallholders are being bullied into financing a venture, which will ultimately destroy their business as well as the markets.

Any fool can see, that people will not come from the outer suburbs to buy smallgoods which are readily available in most supermarkets. Who wants to taste wine at Freo markets, when they can sit at the Sail and Anchor or the Norfolk and drink what ever they like? Or they can cruise away, up to the swan valley. Fremantle is famous for fresh seafood and cafes, so why would the Markets want to compete in such an inferior way. Do you really expect tourists to come to Freo to experience the excitement of packaged meat?

No, Mr Tagliaferri, this is your pet project, and it’s personal for you. Go back to your deli and do what you love, but don’t inflict your emotional or psychological attachments on the Freo Markets.

There is so much I would like to say about the Murdoch’s, but what’s the point? We don’t expect anything from either party now –it’s up to the people of Fremantle to sort this out. After all, they do OWN the markets.

There is only one question that I would like to have answered, on record.

Do you, or will you, have any financial or personal interest in the market redevelopment?

Update: The mayor has replied and he said "No."

Attent: peter tagliaferri, john and jamie murdoch

FREMANTLE MARKETS
STALLHOLDERS ASSOCIATION (Inc)

Fremantle City Council
5th February 2009

General Situation

Fremantle Markets (FMPL) have been given an 18 year lease at an increased head lease cost of $400 per stall or $60,000 pa.

FMPL based on rental increases to date are increasing rents to as high or over $7000 per stall or up to 20 times the increase in head rentals per stall. Increases as high as 80%. Plus on top of this there have been increases in marketing levies etc. If stallholders could afford these increases (using an average of $4000) FMPL could realize increased rentals of over $600,000 per annum or nearly 10 times or 1000% above the head lease rent
The rental increases will make most stallholders businesses either uneconomic to continue or only marginally profitable and hardly worth operating.

Stallholders businesses are virtually un-saleable given the rental and additional costs associated with operating and stallholders face significant capital losses associated with acquisition cost.

FMPL are acting in a totally authoritarian and confrontational manner with no concern for stallholders or the future of the markets. They are also acting in contravention of assurances given to stallholders by Fremantle Council.

1991 Rules and Regulations remain in dispute and Senior Counsel advice will determine how we proceed in relation to Rules 26 and 28.

FMPL Justification of Rental increases:

There has been and can be no justification for FMPL increasing rents by as much as 2000% above the increase in head lease increases.

The rental increases are totally out of line with forecast problems in the retail trade, closures of stores by Harvey Norman and other groups.

The figures for traffic flows and average expenditure by visitors to the markets provided by FMPL that result in average annual income to 150 stallholders currently being some $550,000 per stall are ludicrous. To forecast average turnovers of $936,000 would make all stallholders millionaires and make Fremantle Markets the most desirable retail space in Australia. Also to suggest that at the macro level Fremantle Market currently experiences turnover of $83,000,000 rising to $140,000,000 is incredible.

Were the above figures anywhere close to reality stallholders, assuming only 30% gross profit (based on FMPL average turnover figures) using a discounted present value (NPV) of gross profits over a three year period discounted at a cost of capital of 10% would give a CURRENT AVERAGE value of stalls in Fremantle Markets of $410,000 plus stock and fittings at valuation. or $698,000 plus stock and fittings at valuation with the FMPL forecast figures. Even if working on a net profit of only 20% based on FMPL figures the average NPV or estimated sale value of the stall would currently be $273,000 and on forecast $466,000 respectively plus stock and fittings at valuation. This again is clearly ludicrous and can be checked against recent sales transfer figures for stalls that would be held by FMPL.

Whatever figures FMPL have provided to Fremantle Council they can have no basis in fact or reality as indicated above and are completely misleading.

Comparative evaluations of rental per square metre per 10,000 traffic flow in other markets show that Fremantle is currently the most expensive market by a factor as high as 400%. The comparison is based on Fremantle Markets having a traffic flow of 40,000 and this may be questionable.

The Future

With FMPL’s approach to management we have seen morale at Fremantle Markets at an all time low.

The probability of many or most stallholders being unable to trade profitably under the new rental regime is very high. Many will have no choice but to close shop and walk away facing tens of thousand of dollars in capital losses. This will destroy the markets.
The probability of new businesses being able to trade profitably is low. If new businesses are being encouraged to seek stalls based on the traffic and turnover figures supplied by FMPL

a) They would be basing their decisions on information that can not be substantiated
b) FMPL could be open to legal action by new businesses if the information was deemed misleading or deceptive
c) Lease contracts could be voidable.
The mood of stallholders is such that suggestions for action include consideration of all of the following:

A collective or class legal action.
A petition to Parliament
Representations to both government and opposition and provision of all relevant documentation to them and to the media.
A walk out of stallholders inviting the media to attend
Collectively funded advertisements in the media raising public awareness.

Apparently some media people in press, radio and TV have indicated this could be an excellent David & Goliath story especially in the current global crisis climate and an example of profiteering and bully tactics against stallholders trying to just make a living in very difficult circumstances.

Obviously we would prefer that the above actions are not taken as even though the issue would get great publicity it could be really bad for the markets and no doubt for the Council but for stallholders who otherwise could lose their businesses it will not matter.

Fremantle Markets stall holders association

Fremantle Stallholders Association address to Fremantle Council March 25th 2009
(Colin Wright)

1 year ago many of us met here to listen to your decision on the Market Lease. We heard all the promises, had been given all the guarantees and that evening you were told by the Murdoch’s that: quote

“We don't want to lose any stallholders, we want all the stallholders we have to come along. We have 200 stallholders who are all fantastic people who we want to continue. We don't want to preclude any stallholders from anything.”

They also made a commitment in their pre-meeting presentation to council to continue to provide a:
a secure low cost trading environment despite capital expenditures and trading initiatives.
They also said “We subsidise rents to retain a low cost trading environment”.

Fast forward 12 months and I’d like to introduce to you my friends in the gallery …the sitting duck tenants.
….. Retail tenants at the end of their lease period.

We all want new 5 year agreements and the security of tenure we were promised but not with their conditions or ridiculously high rents attached. We have been left at the negotiating table with landlords who aren’t prepared to negotiate. They hold all the cards…They’re in a superior bargaining position and they are taking advantage of that.

They used stallholders to get support for their 18 year lease and now they turned their back on us.

Their idea of negotiation is……………. “ take it or leave it”
In some cases they take half your shop, that’s half you business.. with no compensation….. Or they relocate you into a shop considerably smaller than your current shop, charge higher rent and try to convince you it’s a good thing.

Can anybody please tell stallholders what ever happened to the Murdoch commitment of a “low cost environment” or how the Council intended to hold them to it.
Their rent goes up 12%. Ours goes up 50 – 100%.

Small businesses like ours have less capacity to pay high occupancy costs and our risk of failure is considerably greater….

Jamie told the Herald last week “we were happy to pay the higher rents”……just look around at all the smiling faces!

We are now asking you “ what can we do about this”.

If we followed Council’s previous advice … all we had to do, was to head off to the SAT and challenge it …incorrect… false information given to stallholders and councilors.
We have no negotiating powers through SAT at the commencement of a lease.

We are totally at the mercy of the landlord….and even though both you Peter and Glen guaranteed all stallholders would get an agreement you cannot follow through on this…they know it and you know it…..

We saw it coming!!!! The Association told you in our Business Plan submission. We made a recommendation for a “Transition Period” between leases to avoid this.

You had 2 1/2 years still to run on the old lease but you surrendered it early. During this time it would have been a good opportunity.…to fine tune the Working Group, plan for change, enact your conservation plan and prepare stallholders for the future. Now we have planning through stealth or forced attrition.

Our businesses are under threat and people will leave…

They are leaving…Bob, Mary, Steve, Alison, Subhi and Annupo, Chris, Nathan, Kung and Sue….and there will be more.

It’s up to the council now to have the will and desire to do something about it.

Or,………… we could take John Murdoch’s advice….
“You’ve had it too good for too long…if you don’t like it get out”

Most recent post http://sonyagreen.blogspot.com/