FrioAg said:

---

Pretty good right up on both bills here. This is really dumb:

Quote:

---

Here's another impact of the bill. The 5,000 bbls allowed to be sold on site would also be the sum of all breweries with common ownership. For instance, Hops & Grain Brewing in Austin, San Marcos and Pint & Plow Brewing in Kerrville, TX would all be counted towards our 5,000 bbl limit because of my common ownership with the three facilities. If we had any investors who had an ownership interest in another brewery in Texas then that breweries tap room sales would also be lumped into our total.

Now here's where it really gets nefarious. If the total production were to increase above 225,000 bbls this bill would still allow for the 5,000 bbl sold on-site but the beer would have to be sold to a wholesaler and then purchased back at retail price before it could be sold on-site. But the beer would never actually leave the brewery. A brewer would have to invoice their distributor at the normal wholesale cost and then the wholesaler would send back an invoice at retail cost before the brewer could sell it. And because of the wonders of the Alcoholic Beverage Code, the brewer would have to pay the invoice immediately and the wholesaler would be allowed credit terms on their invoice.

---

---

Can't they just sell it to middle man at a reduced cost, so when they buy it back, it's all a wash?

I'd assume side project

I don't recall side project having a tv when I went last but wasn't paying a lot of attention.

62strat said:

---

FrioAg said:

---

Pretty good right up on both bills here. This is really dumb:

Quote:

---

Here's another impact of the bill. The 5,000 bbls allowed to be sold on site would also be the sum of all breweries with common ownership. For instance, Hops & Grain Brewing in Austin, San Marcos and Pint & Plow Brewing in Kerrville, TX would all be counted towards our 5,000 bbl limit because of my common ownership with the three facilities. If we had any investors who had an ownership interest in another brewery in Texas then that breweries tap room sales would also be lumped into our total.

Now here's where it really gets nefarious. If the total production were to increase above 225,000 bbls this bill would still allow for the 5,000 bbl sold on-site but the beer would have to be sold to a wholesaler and then purchased back at retail price before it could be sold on-site. But the beer would never actually leave the brewery. A brewer would have to invoice their distributor at the normal wholesale cost and then the wholesaler would send back an invoice at retail cost before the brewer could sell it. And because of the wonders of the Alcoholic Beverage Code, the brewer would have to pay the invoice immediately and the wholesaler would be allowed credit terms on their invoice.

---

---

Can't they just sell it to middle man at a reduced cost, so when they buy it back, it's all a wash?

---

Even at a reduced cost brewers would still be charged to move beer from fermenter to keg to serving. Where as before it would have been $0 to serve at taproom. If I am understanding correctly.

FrioAg said:

---

Pretty good right up on both bills here. This is really dumb:

Quote:

---

Here's another impact of the bill. The 5,000 bbls allowed to be sold on site would also be the sum of all breweries with common ownership. For instance, Hops & Grain Brewing in Austin, San Marcos and Pint & Plow Brewing in Kerrville, TX would all be counted towards our 5,000 bbl limit because of my common ownership with the three facilities. If we had any investors who had an ownership interest in another brewery in Texas then that breweries tap room sales would also be lumped into our total.

Now here's where it really gets nefarious. If the total production were to increase above 225,000 bbls this bill would still allow for the 5,000 bbl sold on-site but the beer would have to be sold to a wholesaler and then purchased back at retail price before it could be sold on-site. But the beer would never actually leave the brewery. A brewer would have to invoice their distributor at the normal wholesale cost and then the wholesaler would send back an invoice at retail cost before the brewer could sell it. And because of the wonders of the Alcoholic Beverage Code, the brewer would have to pay the invoice immediately and the wholesaler would be allowed credit terms on their invoice.

---

---

This is a good reminder why breweries who sell to ABI like Karbach and Wicked Weed are bad for craft breweries. I know this bill would actually hurt someone really bad like Karbach. But, my point is that the 2 big lobbyist groups(big beer and distributors) are going to use laws to make them as much money as possible with no regards to the little guys.

The state of Texas should of been working on a bill this session that would allow breweries to sell beer for off site consumption directly from the brewery. Instead, we have lobbyist for distributors working on a bill that does the exact opposite.

FrioAg said:

---

62strat said:

---

FrioAg said:

---

Pretty good right up on both bills here. This is really dumb:

Quote:

---

Here's another impact of the bill. The 5,000 bbls allowed to be sold on site would also be the sum of all breweries with common ownership. For instance, Hops & Grain Brewing in Austin, San Marcos and Pint & Plow Brewing in Kerrville, TX would all be counted towards our 5,000 bbl limit because of my common ownership with the three facilities. If we had any investors who had an ownership interest in another brewery in Texas then that breweries tap room sales would also be lumped into our total.

Now here's where it really gets nefarious. If the total production were to increase above 225,000 bbls this bill would still allow for the 5,000 bbl sold on-site but the beer would have to be sold to a wholesaler and then purchased back at retail price before it could be sold on-site. But the beer would never actually leave the brewery. A brewer would have to invoice their distributor at the normal wholesale cost and then the wholesaler would send back an invoice at retail cost before the brewer could sell it. And because of the wonders of the Alcoholic Beverage Code, the brewer would have to pay the invoice immediately and the wholesaler would be allowed credit terms on their invoice.

---

---

Can't they just sell it to middle man at a reduced cost, so when they buy it back, it's all a wash?

---

Even at a reduced cost brewers would still be charged to move beer from fermenter to keg to serving. Where as before it would have been $0 to serve at taproom. If I am understanding correctly.

---

they aren't serving from fermenters in the taproom.

ABI also reportedly just announced that all of the hop production from south africa, which was SAB farms (now ABI) will be only used for ABI owned beers, voiding all contracts from outside brewers.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/anheuser-busch-inbev-shuts-out-craft-beer-brewers-by-hoarding-hops-2017-05-11?mod=mw_share_facebook

AggieOO said:

---

FrioAg said:

---

62strat said:

---

FrioAg said:

---

Pretty good right up on both bills here. This is really dumb:

Quote:

---

Here's another impact of the bill. The 5,000 bbls allowed to be sold on site would also be the sum of all breweries with common ownership. For instance, Hops & Grain Brewing in Austin, San Marcos and Pint & Plow Brewing in Kerrville, TX would all be counted towards our 5,000 bbl limit because of my common ownership with the three facilities. If we had any investors who had an ownership interest in another brewery in Texas then that breweries tap room sales would also be lumped into our total.

Now here's where it really gets nefarious. If the total production were to increase above 225,000 bbls this bill would still allow for the 5,000 bbl sold on-site but the beer would have to be sold to a wholesaler and then purchased back at retail price before it could be sold on-site. But the beer would never actually leave the brewery. A brewer would have to invoice their distributor at the normal wholesale cost and then the wholesaler would send back an invoice at retail cost before the brewer could sell it. And because of the wonders of the Alcoholic Beverage Code, the brewer would have to pay the invoice immediately and the wholesaler would be allowed credit terms on their invoice.

---

---

Can't they just sell it to middle man at a reduced cost, so when they buy it back, it's all a wash?

---

Even at a reduced cost brewers would still be charged to move beer from fermenter to keg to serving. Where as before it would have been $0 to serve at taproom. If I am understanding correctly.

---

they aren't serving from fermenters in the taproom.

---

Yeh, that response didn't make any sense to me either. Taprooms serve from kegs. This bill specifically says, the kegs don't even have to leave the brewery.. it's just paperwork.

I don't know who sets pricing, but it seems brewery could sell product X to wholesale for whatever amount, with a contractual agreed price to buy back (basically a 'retail' price). So yes they do lose some, but seems they could control it.

Sell them the keg for $40 and buy it back for $45 They lose $5 a keg. If the markup is set by wholesaler (say 20%), then sell them the keg for $10 and but it back for $12.

If you also sell kegs to same wholesaler that actually go to bars/restaurants, that may get tricky (probably can't sell same keg at two different prices I'm sure). But for those that only do taproom drafts....

Outside of all that, why isn't there a craft only wholesaler in TX.. or is there? Seems they could work with breweries to loophole the **** out of a bill like that.

I think flood distribution is craft only.

AggieOO said:

---

FrioAg said:

---

62strat said:

---

FrioAg said:

---

Pretty good right up on both bills here. This is really dumb:

Quote:

---

Here's another impact of the bill. The 5,000 bbls allowed to be sold on site would also be the sum of all breweries with common ownership. For instance, Hops & Grain Brewing in Austin, San Marcos and Pint & Plow Brewing in Kerrville, TX would all be counted towards our 5,000 bbl limit because of my common ownership with the three facilities. If we had any investors who had an ownership interest in another brewery in Texas then that breweries tap room sales would also be lumped into our total.

Now here's where it really gets nefarious. If the total production were to increase above 225,000 bbls this bill would still allow for the 5,000 bbl sold on-site but the beer would have to be sold to a wholesaler and then purchased back at retail price before it could be sold on-site. But the beer would never actually leave the brewery. A brewer would have to invoice their distributor at the normal wholesale cost and then the wholesaler would send back an invoice at retail cost before the brewer could sell it. And because of the wonders of the Alcoholic Beverage Code, the brewer would have to pay the invoice immediately and the wholesaler would be allowed credit terms on their invoice.

---

---

Can't they just sell it to middle man at a reduced cost, so when they buy it back, it's all a wash?

---

Even at a reduced cost brewers would still be charged to move beer from fermenter to keg to serving. Where as before it would have been $0 to serve at taproom. If I am understanding correctly.

---

they aren't serving from fermenters in the taproom.

---

Understand. Was trying illustrate that, under both models, beers never leave the brewery. In the new model, they are being charged X amount to buy back and sell in the taproom where previously it had been at $0 added cost.

62strat said:

---

AggieOO said:

---

FrioAg said:

---

62strat said:

---

FrioAg said:

---

Pretty good right up on both bills here. This is really dumb:

Quote:

---

Here's another impact of the bill. The 5,000 bbls allowed to be sold on site would also be the sum of all breweries with common ownership. For instance, Hops & Grain Brewing in Austin, San Marcos and Pint & Plow Brewing in Kerrville, TX would all be counted towards our 5,000 bbl limit because of my common ownership with the three facilities. If we had any investors who had an ownership interest in another brewery in Texas then that breweries tap room sales would also be lumped into our total.

Now here's where it really gets nefarious. If the total production were to increase above 225,000 bbls this bill would still allow for the 5,000 bbl sold on-site but the beer would have to be sold to a wholesaler and then purchased back at retail price before it could be sold on-site. But the beer would never actually leave the brewery. A brewer would have to invoice their distributor at the normal wholesale cost and then the wholesaler would send back an invoice at retail cost before the brewer could sell it. And because of the wonders of the Alcoholic Beverage Code, the brewer would have to pay the invoice immediately and the wholesaler would be allowed credit terms on their invoice.

---

---

Can't they just sell it to middle man at a reduced cost, so when they buy it back, it's all a wash?

---

Even at a reduced cost brewers would still be charged to move beer from fermenter to keg to serving. Where as before it would have been $0 to serve at taproom. If I am understanding correctly.

---

they aren't serving from fermenters in the taproom.

---

Yeh, that response didn't make any sense to me either. Taprooms serve from kegs. This bill specifically says, the kegs don't even have to leave the brewery.. it's just paperwork.

I don't know who sets pricing, but it seems brewery could sell product X to wholesale for whatever amount, with a contractual agreed price to buy back (basically a 'retail' price). So yes they do lose some, but seems they could control it.

Sell them the keg for $40 and buy it back for $45 They lose $5 a keg. If the markup is set by wholesaler (say 20%), then sell them the keg for $10 and but it back for $12.

If you also sell kegs to same wholesaler that actually go to bars/restaurants, that may get tricky (probably can't sell same keg at two different prices I'm sure). But for those that only do taproom drafts....

---

I understand that beer comes from kegs in a taproom. Point is that the same process applies (Ferment, Keg, Serve) whether or not the law is in effect.

Even with the agreed upon buy back price, you are now introducing a new cost for no added benefit to the brewery. Only the distributor gets a benefit as they are now gaining profit from having the tap room sales.

Free money for distributors for a product they haven't touched.
I suppose their argument could be that it's a lost opportunity for them since that beer could have been served somewhere that would have required their services, but that's pretty asinine.

They shouldn't have to do that though is the point. Sure they can keep prices down for their consumers but it's completely absurd that a company providing no service in that instance whatsoever should profit. I'd be tempted to make them pick it up and deliver it back just so they had to earn their check.

Lucky #007 said:

---

They shouldn't have to do that though is the point. Sure they can keep prices down for their consumers but it's completely absurd that a company providing no service in that instance whatsoever should profit. I'd be tempted to make them pick it up and deliver it back just so they had to earn their check.

---

i know i sure as hell would. unless the distributors paid enough $$ to get something written into the bill to avoid this, which wouldn't surprise me.

Guys I understand the law is stupid and is only giving money to someone not adding any benefit.. My point is, if a law like this passed, it seems easy to circumvent.

AggieStout said:

---

62strat said:

---

Outside of all that, why isn't there a craft only wholesaler in TX.. or is there? Seems they could work with breweries to loophole the **** out of a bill like that.

---

I was thinking the same thing. I was also thinking that I like craft beer and I may also be good at distributing it. Plus I wouldn't charge much at all for said craft beer.

TexAgs Craft only beer distributor business? who's in?

---

I'm in. I can fit at least 3 kegs in my car.

Three-tier system needs to die. Breweries of any size should be free to sell as much as they want on site (for on or off premise consumption) and have the choice to distribute on their own and/or work with a distributor.

wessimo said:

---

Three-tier system needs to die. Breweries of any size should be free to sell as much as they want on site (for on or off premise consumption) and have the choice to distribute on their own and/or work with a distributor.

---

Isn't a three tier system still in place in every state? Difference being, in most states a brewery can bypass and self distribute? Or is that allowed in TX too? I don't even remember all the changes they made several years ago.

Brewery - wholesaler - retailer - consumer. I'm sure some beer in a liquor store in CO is self distributed from a brewery, but surely many of them go through a wholesaler... they coexist.

wessimo said:

---

I'm fine with breweries using a distributor if they want to, I just disagree with laws saying they have to.

---

This. Shouldn't distributors have to show how they add value to breweries and consumers, instead of just forcing those groups to use them?

DonaldFDraper said:

---

SP = ?

Any near the airport?

---

Side Project.

And yes, they were raving about Narrow Gauge. Especially if you like IPAs. It's N/NE of the airport in Florissant.

Breweries can self distribute in Texas. There may be a production limit though. Can't brew more than x number of barrels a year to be able to self distribute. Or maybe it depends on the license the brewery gets. Taproom vs brew pub vs production brewery. Those all have limits on production amounts.

Anyone still need some hot hopslam? I know people.

The first time I had that I thought it was the best IPA ever....the second time I had that I almost poured it out.

I agree with your second thought. Two Hearted is great. HopSlam I gave away to anyone who would take it.

Nice boat.

YAF

Easily the best 2 new beers I've had this year

I saw some of those posted not too long ago for sale, but they wanted a good amount for them. I guess the beer lives up to the price.