Agency officials last week released a statement saying the board "has no business relation with Diageo other than selling its products in ABC stores in Mecklenburg County."But copies of checks show the relationship includes buying as well.
The board paid more than $11 million to Diageo Americas from January to November, according to documents obtained by WCNC, the Observer's news partner.
The state Alcohol Law Enforcement Division is investigating a $9,000 Nov. 18 dinner for 28 people, including ABC officials, paid for by London-based Diageo, which makes brands such as Smirnoff vodka and Johnnie Walker Scotch.
Last week, Helms announced that he and other top staff paid back the cost of the meal at Del Frisco's steakhouse in south Charlotte. The board at that time also released its statement describing the relationship between the agency and Diageo.
- Doug Miller
Posts
10 comments:
Well DUH! If you're selling a product, you have to BUY it first! This NON_STORY needs to die.
Are the Observer writers idiots or are they just trying to make a story out of nothing? This is not news. Anyone in business knows that if you say you sell a company's product that you have to pay the company for that product. The earlier poster got this right; this is a non-story.
Heck yeah I'd spring for dinner if my clients bought 60,000 cases of my product. A less than 1% rebate/gift to a good customer. I bet the owners of Frugal McDougals got more!
Tell me why it costs $53.95 for a 1.75 bottle of Crown Royal in NC and only $39.95 in Maryland.
This is just typical misleading journalism practiced by nearly all of the media in Charlotte. I sure wouldn't let anyone sell my products unless they bought them from me first. The moron writers at the Observer evidently don't know a thing about simple economics.
Maybe the ABC should be abolished and Revenue Dept formulated like other Non-Blue Law states.
I'm assuming that those dismising this blatant example of corruption have a family member working for the ABC. If not, and you pride yourself for your unbiased opinion, then I have no doubt that you will join the vast majority of your fellow taxpapers and call for scrapping this idiotic government monopoly. Or do you also believe that a state-owned store should also be the ONLY place to buy food or gasoline or hardware goods?
Right up there with many poorly written articles from CO, but then why is it a story?
I'm with the prevailing opinion here - its high school level. To sell any product in any retail store, one of three things has to happen - 1)the supplier donates the product to the store owner; 2)the store owner buys the product up front from the supplier, then resales it to the consumer; or 3)the supplier places the product in the store, then when it is sold, receives a portion of the sales revenue. I doubt "1" occurred, which leaves the other two options. So, where is the story here?
I am amazed at many of the comments. This story is not about economics. It is a story about greed and the lack of accountability that exists with the local ABC management. I seriously doubt anything will come of it but I certainly applaud the Observer for exposing what is taking place. Those that keep saying a merchant has to purchase goods before he can sell them should really think about what they are saying.
Post a Comment