Quoted from blackdog

And my point was that the Blue Ball is trading profitably, it is not an empty pub struggling to survive.

It might be trading profitably, but I think we all know the breweries grind their managers into the ground and short of a conglomerate buy-out, this is just going to roll on and on, until it caves in.

There is a number of reason pubs are dying, but for sure, their status as a social asset is very questionable.

Gone are the days a pub could rely on their locals to keep the pub going from Sunday night to Wednesday, then welcome others for the rest of the week.

People don't need pubs like they used to.

For The Blue Ball to stand a chance, it would have to do food  (well) and kick some of the sh*t out.  Sadly it is some of the sh*t that keeps the quiet days from being empty.

Quoted from blackdog

Sure there will be times when it has few customers, but that doesn't mean it is dying for lack of trade. As you point out these are difficult time for local pubs - so why get rid of one that is bucking the trend and is doing well? All for the sake of a few more houses which certainly won't fall into the 'affordable' category.

Well for affordable, if what you infer is true, that would depend on whether the occupants vacate an affordable dwelling to occupy them; there are two ways to increase the amount of affordable homes.

If The Blue Ball did a trade like I remember it in the 80s, their would be no question of it turning into flats, but it seems that isn't the case these days.

Like I said, I'd rather things were different, but I think we need to return to the OP: Is The Blue Ball an irreplaceable social asset?