Reply With Quote
Lagunitas Fusion on tap around TX at the moment is pretty good if you like hoppy lagunitas beers.
Lagunitas Fusion on tap around TX at the moment is pretty good if you like hoppy lagunitas beers.
Their "Blood and Honey" might be my new favorite beer. Holy .
i've been hearing a lot of good things about that beer. i'll just have to wait for the Big Texas Beer Fest. you going to that?
Their "Blood and Honey" might be my new favorite beer. Holy .
Soon... Scott.. soon.
Last edited by Sense; 03-12-2013 at 08:07 PM.
I've been trying unsuccessfully to upload from my phone a photo of a frosty bottle of Cuban SWILL called "Bucanero" from my Caribbean vacation a couple of weeks ago. Ghastly. My friend is a Cuban cigar aficionado but a beer novice (worse than me; he lives on the edge with Shiner Bock lol) and we decided this Cuban stuff could be recreated by placing his cigar stub in a couple inches of Bud and leaving it outside on our balcony for a couple of nights. I opted for the $2/bottle Red Stripe (Jamaican not American) which was perfect but went down like water on that beach
Looks like Texas micro breweries are gonna lose quite a bit of money by losing their distribution rights. Deep Ellum Brewing company is quite angry.
Yep
This is a good beer but just doesn't feel right when i tried it. Was a cold day. Blood and honey will be perfect once it warms up and for warm afternoon drinking.
Their "Blood and Honey" might be my new favorite beer. Holy .
http://blog.mysanantonio.com/food/20...-some-brewers/
Good, bad, indifferent?
It sounds like there is more freedom for the various brewers, but with a lot of limits and checks. What do you guys think?
Is this a victory scott ?
Edit, I just went through and reread the damn thing.
I don't know how I missed that, I wish I could pretend that I was being sarcastic with the question above, but I was not.
LOL
leemajors I guess my question was more targeted at the fact that the part that he developed was watered down a little and that the surprise bill that was introduced and passed was included, so did the good outweigh the bad. I got my answer in the article though.
Last edited by Drachen; 03-14-2013 at 06:12 PM.
Not for North Texas Breweries according to what I've read.
I believe he helped make it happen, so I would assume so.
They can sell pints onsite now, which can only benefit them in the long run. I think Deep Ellum is being a bit short sighted, as Drachen's article states. Nothing great for everyone was gonna happen overnight, and hopefully things will continue to change. A couple years ago there was no chance of changes being discussed at all.
Just picked up a 22 of Ballast Point Indra Kunindra. Stout with curry, in, cayenne, coconut and kaffir lime. Holy is this good.
Where did you get this
I think he is in SD, probably only available in CA. TX gets ballast point now but none of their special stuff.
Sad day.
Just made my SLC beer run - grabbed Uinta Brewing: Sea Legs baltic porter, Dubhe Black IPA (4 pack), Birthday Suit Sour Brown Ale.
Epic Brewing: Big Bad Baptist Imperial Coffee Stout, Utah Sage Saison, Hopulent IPA, Imperial IPA. Would have got more but United's baggage fees suck.
Also got a bottle of High West Distillery's Double Rye Whiskey after trying a sampler of their spirits in Park City. Pretty tasty stuff.
i don't think they are. they're a brewery not a brewpub. i can see their beef with having to run a restaurant on top of running a brewery. DEBC and a lot of other breweries here in North Texas, and i'm sure everywhere else, sell to restaurants and will now be competing with them. that's another big investment these breweries have to take on.
That's not what they are upset about. No brewpub in TX has the capacity to "compete" with a production brewery.
yes. not the only thing they're upset about, but....."Here's the bottom line... the purchase and sale of distribution rights is legal - always has been. In the compromise, our rights were taken. I can't support that. No matter how much icing they throw on the cake. If I wanted to run a pub, I would have run a pub. We still can't sell our beer to go. So, now I'm looking at running a pub, alongside a manufacturing facility, all the while trying to make enough beer to supply both." debc's facebook
I had seen this one the other day on twitter: "Deep Ellum Brewing Company
Mar 12 at 6:53pm ·
Such a huge step backward for microbreweries. Congrats to the regionals, brewpubs, and most especially the distributors for getting all you wanted. It only cost you.... OUR distribution value!! SB 639 is a terrible piece of legislation. To see it now being triumphed as a win for the craft community is an absolute travesty."
I just think they're being awfully melodramatic. I don't think anyone got everything they wanted.
More "melodramatics" from North Dallas's Peticolas
Peticolas Brewing Company
SUNDAY, MARCH 17, 2013
Anti-craft beer bill SB639 mars craft beer legislation
************** Anti-craft beer bill 639 takes away rights of Texas craft beer brewers.* Specifically, the proposed bill prohibits a brewer from selling its territorial distribution rights.* Currently, Texas brewers have the right to self-distribute their beer.* A brewer willing to sell its self-distribution rights and a wholesaler willing to buy those rights can enter into an agreement whereby the wholesaler purchases the brewer's right to distribute beer in a specified territory.* Proposed anti-craft beer bill 639 renders such practice illegal.* In essence, anti-craft beer bill 639 is a legal constraint on the freedom of willing buyers and sellers to exercise their rights in the free market.
*
*************** While anti-craft beer bill 639 prohibits a brewer from selling its own distribution rights, it does not prohibit a wholesaler from selling those same rights to another wholesaler.* In other words, a brewer could not sell its territorial rights, but a distributor holding such rights could freely sell them to another distributor.* Further, once a brewer signs with a wholesaler, it arguably cannot break the distribution agreement without compensating such wholesaler for the fair market value of the brewer's distribution rights.* So under anti-craft beer bill 639, a brewer cannot receive payment from a wholesaler for the brewer's distribution rights, a wholesaler can receive payment from another wholesaler for a brewer's distribution rights, and a brewer may actually have to pay a wholesaler to buy back its own distribution rights.* The free market exists for wholesalers under anti-craft beer bill 639, but not brewers.* *
We are against anti-craft beer bill 639.* Texas is notorious for its antiquated beer laws.* At a time when consumers are requesting more favorable beer legislation, anti-craft beer bill 639 pushes us in the opposite direction.* Are we headed down a slippery slope?* There is no guarantee that proposed 2015 legislation won't seek to go further and void additional brewer rights.* We cannot support any legislation that seeks to take away rights currently enjoyed by any brewer in Texas.* *
How did anti-craft beer bill 639 come into being?* Approximately one year ago, Texas Senator Carona created working groups to debate and draft potential craft beer legislation.* Upon completion, the working groups submitted craft beer bills 515-518.* Without any prior discussion of anti-craft beer bill 639, Senator Carona sponsored 639 as craft beer bills 515-518 were submitted to the Business and Commerce committee.* Last Monday, the newest revision of anti-craft beer bill 639 included language expressly incorporating it as part of the remaining package of craft beers bills (515-518).
*************** We now find ourselves in an awkward position.* Craft beer bills 515-518 become law only if anti-craft beer bill 639 is also enacted.* Literally lose rights in exchange for other rights. Support or fight the entire package. *We are discussing the issues, educating ourselves and weighing options.* We'll eventually come down on one side or the other, but we remain focused on analyzing the scenario created for us just 6 days ago.*
Unfortunately, the Texas legislature has not passed any favorable craft beer legislation in the last 20 years.* Texas craft brewers' only recent statutory victories resulted from claims asserted in federal court. *Should anti-craft beer bill 639 become law, we hope to join with other similarly situated brewers to challenge the legality of this legislation.*
Law over beer once again...dang it! *Alfred Brown Peticolas would be pleased.
Michael Peticolas at 4:01 PM
http://peticolasbrewing.blogspot.com...craft.html?m=1
Oh and Michael Peticolas, the owner, is a lawyer
Scott's Blog Post:
http://blog.freetailbrewing.com/2013...-move-forward/
Was anyone Deep Ellum and Peticolas down there trying to actually work on the bill? It sounds like they made the best of a very bad situation with 639 to me, which would probably have sailed through unaltered.On Deals and Disagreements: Beer Bills Move Forward
As has been widely reported, a deal was struck late Monday afternoon between The Texas Craft Brewers Guild, distributor groups, large brewers, and Open The Taps.
The final deal includes the following bills, and here is the final version of what they do (items in earlier versions of the bills but not listed below are not part of the final bills):
SB 515:
increases annual production limit of brewpubs from 5,000 barrels to 10,000 barrels
allows all brewpubs to sell to wholesalers
allows brewpubs who only sell alcoholic beverages made on-site to self-distribute up to 1,000 barrels per year from a single brewpub, and up to 2,500 barrels per year from all brewpubs owned by the same licensee
SB 516 & 517
creates a new Brewer Distributor permit, with a fee set at $250, which a production brewer under 125,000 barrels of annual production can obtain to self-distribute up to 40,000 barrels per year
SB 518
allows production breweries who are under 225,000 barrels of annual production to sell up to 5,000 barrels per year to ultimate consumers for on-site consumption
SB 639
codifies the 2010 TABC Marketing Practices Bulletin against the practice of “Reach-Back Pricing”, which is the practice where a manufacturer will adjust his price to a wholesaler based specifically on the price a wholesaler sells to a retailer. The new language goes on to specifically state that a manufacturer is still free to adjust prices as necessary, however it cannot be based on the wholesaler’s price to the retailer
outlaws a manufacturer from accepting payment specifically in exchange for an agreement setting forth territorial rights
sets forth language that specifically permits a manufacturer and a wholesaler to enter in contractual agreements that govern ordinary business, including but not limited to, allowances, rebates, refunds, services, capacity, advertising funds, promotional funds, or sports marketing funds
states the code does not prohibit a wholesaler from selling territorial rights of a manufacturer to another wholesaler
I am fully aware of the dissatisfaction of some members of our Guild at the provisions contained in the new 639, specifically “outlaws a manufacturer from accepting payment specifically in exchange for an agreement setting forth territorial rights.”
This provision of 639 came into being because wholesalers felt the practice of paying for territorial rights violated the tied-house provisions of the Alcoholic Beverage Code. TABC was asked to clarify such payments did, in fact, represent a violation of the TABC code. TABC’s response was not to say the practice was legal or illegal, but rather to say that they didn’t know and would benefit from legislative clarification. Thus, the original SB 639 contained this provision.
Recently, such payments have occurred in the marketplace and the practice is becoming more common, though certainly not the standard. At the same time, some of my closest colleagues in the industry have confided in me that they never received any payment for their distribution rights, because when they asked TABC, they were told it was illegal. It is important to stress that at no point has TABC or the Legislature specifically said this transaction was legal.
Throughout the course of the debate on this specific provision of 639, I fought tirelessly to earn the right of brewers to be able to sell the distribution rights. No one put up a bigger fight and no one took as much of a beating on this than me. Make no mistake, my position and the position of the Texas Craft Brewers Guild is that a brewer who builds a valuable distribution network through his or her right to self-distribute should be compensated for that value when he or she turns operations over to a distributor.
There was a point when it became very clear to me that this provision of 639 was going to move forward as the Legislature felt this activity should be illegal rather than specifically making it legal. This is up for every person to debate on their own, but I had come to understand with absolutely certainty that this practice was going to be outlawed one way or another. The debate was had, and the debate was lost by my side.
When that moment occurred, we immediately shifted gears to try to make this provision in 639 as palatable as possible (if it could even be done). This is where the language that sets forth other ways in which manufacturers and wholesalers comes from. While the specific payment in exchange for territorial rights was outlawed, for the first time in Texas history, we codified a series of other agreements that often occurred in the marketplace but had questionable legality.
I’m not just saying this to defend myself, but because I believe this is absolutely a true statement: without the work of the Guild, the provisions of 639 would have been a lot worse for Texas craft brewers. Not only did we curb some of the provisions in that bill, we gained rights that myself and some of my colleagues have been working on for almost a decade.
To be very clear: we did not “trade” the provisions of SB 639 in exchange for SB 515-18. Rather, we were able to greatly scale back 639 (including defeating the proposed severability language and mandated uniform pricing) while also gaining the rights enumerated in 515-18. For this, I will contend until the day I die that this was a victory for Texas craft brewers – and that first such victory since Brewpubs were legalized in 1993.
I welcome and encourage your feedback and discussion on this issue.
Last edited by leemajors; 03-18-2013 at 07:46 AM.
Anyone seen the Dogfish 61 around? IPA with Syrah must:
http://drinks.seriouseats.com/2013/0...html?ref= le
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
