Sunday, May 4, 2014

Bar Rescue - Thirsty's Roadside Bar (Mary's Outpost) Update

On tonight's episode of Bar Rescue, Jon Taffer and crew are in Grand Prairie, Texas to try to rescue Mary's Outpost.  Mary's is a struggling dive bar with an owner who is handing out free drinks despite the fact that the bar is struggling.  The owner Bill also crosses the line with one of Jon Taffer's experts and tries to get girls to take their tops off in his back office.  He does this despite his wife working in the bar.

During the Bar Rescue makeover, Mary's Outpost was renamed to Thirsty's Roadside Bar.  From the looks of their website/Facebook, it looks like they are going with a combination of the two and will not commit to one name.  Let's take a look at some information, reviews, and updates for Thirsty's Roadside Bar since Bar Rescue came and made all of the changes to the bar:


Reviews:

  • "This is my first time at Mary's Outpost. The waitress was very nice to us. It was awesome we got to meet the owner. He was very nice too. Overall very cool place to go for karaoke bar in the grand prairie area. We will definitely be back here. Awesome place. The place looks great.
  • Great place to hang out and do some karaoke with your friends.  Love this place everyone very friendly.  Must go place while in Grand Prairie"
  • "The bartenders and owner are all hanging around, the people you meet are true Texas characters. We've gone back several times, stopping by after work to unwind and also on the weekend when bored at home. It's like walking into a Texas Cheers.  Recently "Bar Rescue" was there, changed the name to Thristy's, but it will always be Mary's Outpost."
  • "No way.   Almost no service,  no posted specials,  nothing at all.  Boo. Can't tell they have been on Bar Rescue at all.  Won't go back.... UPDATED - Owner replied with a great response. I respect that very much. Offered to speak about any issue over a free drink."
*Reviews from Yelp, Tripadvisor


Other News and Links:

  • Here are 2 preview videos for this episode on the Spike TV website.  The owner has a back room where he lures supposedly tries to lure girls back there to take their tops off.  One of the bartenders Nikki acts as his wing woman.
  • Here is the Thirsty's Roadside Bar Facebook page (still listed as Mary's Outpost), another Mary's Outpost Facebook page which is more up to date, and website (with a picture of 5 girls in skimpy bikinis as the first picture).
  • Here is a status from their page "This is the trailer for the show Sunday 8 pm. REMEMBER this is all for show. Bill not sleeping with Nikki, and He was only chasing him around the parking lot for fun. And contrary to later in the show He DID NOT become a nice guy! This should be a very embarrassing, I mean FUN experience."
  • The Bar Rescue makeover happened in late January 2014.
  • The bar replaced all of the bar stools in March 2014.  It seems the ones Bar Rescue provided were not that great and many people were complaining about them. (Link)
  • The bar also has recently redone their bathrooms and have sold the picnic tables provided by Bar Rescue.
  • In another Facebook status, the bar states: "Ever since Bar Rescue came in we've heard many comments like "It's not Mary's anymore." I don't understand this. Mary's wasn't about the torn up chairs and stools or anything else material. Mary's was and will always be about the people-the customers and employees. Mary's is a place that doesn't care about your age, race, how much you make, gay or straight, Tattoos, piercings, or whatever. Mary's is about a safe place to come and have a good time. None of us are happy with many changes that were made, and we've done our best to improve it with chairs and stools that actually match!, smoke eaters, getting rid of the damn picnic tables, Kimmie's newly remodeled bathrooms and several other things to improve the looks, but those things are "nice-to-haves" not "have-to-haves." Sorry this was so long..."
  • The public Texas Mixed Beverage Gross Receipts for Mary's Outpost were:
    • Before Bar Rescue -  $4803.54 in September 2013, $4831.40 in October 2013, $5024.46 in November 2013, $4707.50 in December 2013,
    • After Bar Rescue - $1405.52 in January 2014, $1866.01 in February 2014, $2388.41 in March 2014
      • So, it looks like gross receipts dropped pretty big, unless they are cooking the books.
  • Here are the Facebook pages of Bill (owner), his wife Kimmie, and Nikki, Elena, Rachael, and Bruce.
  • Here are 5 Youtube videos from someone who was in the bar during the Bar Rescue taping. She seemed to be taping undercover while the crew was filming.  Nothing too special in the videos, but you can see how many cameras are in the bar and some behind the scenes action.
  • The owner Bill has been responding to the few reviews on Yelp.  He is telling people in the positive reviews to look for them on Bar Rescue, and he offered a free drink to someone that left a negative review. (Link)

Conclusion:

The few reviews of Thirsty's Roadside Bar seem to like the atmosphere of the bar and their karaoke.  Judging by the Facebook page of the bar, some of the regulars were upset by the changes.  The mixed beverage gross receipts submitted to the state of Texas seem to indicate that business has been down a bit since Bar Rescue visited.

This episode looks like it is going to focus on the owner Bill.  The bar has said everything was done for show, and that Bill is not sleeping with Nikki.  They also expect the episode to be embarrassing/fun.  Bill has responded Yelp reviews online and their Facebook page is pretty open, so it will be interesting to see their reaction after the show.

Also, Nikki who was fired on the show, still works at the bar and is friends with Kimmie on Facebook.

*To see how all of the bars from Bar Rescue are doing, go to the Bar Rescue Update page, and also Like us on Facebook or Follow Us on Twitter to stay up to date with all things involving Bar Rescue.  One update from this week is that Headhunters closed.

153 comments:

  1. Anne Luhnow PettitMay 4, 2014 at 2:15 PM

    My only complaint is the painting of the ceiling tiles. Those weren't cheap and the money paid for them went to the childrens' hospital. Many of them were memorials to patrons who had passed away. BR promised they would not screw with those, and the only one left is Max's and that is because it was removed to hang stage lighting for the show. I love the new COLD beer, and the fact that they got a POS system and a second well behind the bar. Speaking of Max, he is a Viet Nam veteran and was denied entry for wearing a hat with the american flag on it. The producers are in a blue collar part of Texas and no one was allowed in with a hat on?? That was ridiculous.

    ReplyDelete
  2. What a dump.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Old guests are always pissed off at the changes. Happened to us when we took over at our hotel too. Been a year and now we have mostly great reviews. People will get over it and if they don't, they'll move on and be replaced by people who do like it.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Picnic tables sucked. I wouldn't wanna sit at those inside!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Yeah, Nikki works there again. She actually is a great employee so they worked it out. Bill's not allowed in there very often as part of the agreement.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I actually watched this episode twice last night. After Oface, I am very surprised that Jon moved forward with this episode. The majority owner Bill should not be in the bar business. His behavior was definitely WRONG. I can't believe his wife didn't shoot him citing the "he needed clause"! This guy was sexually improper with employees and customers!!!
    This episode was absolutely one of the worse I have seen! BR was recently picked up for (20) more episodes and I truly hope that Jon gets back to more rescue and bar science and less drama and BS.
    The reviews state that Nikki is back? WOW, either Kim is a great actress or has absolutely no self esteem?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anne, I assume from your post that there was some type of memoriam on the ceiling of this bar? Could you please elaborate on this situation?
    Was this "hat rule" for the shooting schedule? Why did the "producers" invoke this rule?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Regarding the gross receipts:
    1) I assume that's the amount of the tax on the receipts, the the volume sold.
    2) I'm willing to bet that this has more to do with having a POS system instead of an old cash register. My guess is that they were allocating items differently on their sales taxes to pay less taxes. Seems a new law went into effect this year that reduced the the tax the owners pay on liquor, and instituted an 8.25% sales tax on mixed drinks. Since the tax was already on beer beforehand, coupled with the somewhat antiquated cash register, I could see them throwing a hefty percentage of the beer sales onto mixed drinks sales to lower the tax bill. Between the POS system (which would automatically allocate the sales taxes into the right categories) and the new law (renders the sleight of hand meaningless), I think that is why you're seeing the dip in the tax receipts there.

    ReplyDelete
  9. In this type of business there is ALWAYS going to be at least SOME kind of drama, it's a very stressful line of work so it's inevitable, there's really no way for producers to avoid it. I for one like the show and am fine with the way it is going.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Stephanie BrittainMay 5, 2014 at 7:49 PM

    False Advertisement-------------------------------------------- Mary's is a place that
    doesn't care about your age, race, how much you make, gay or straight,
    Tattoos, piercings, or whatever.----------because my husband had sexual false accusations against him in 2000 and he has been going off and on to Marys for 20 years and the last 3 years was a regular daily attender there well some dumbass looked up my husband online and it started B.S. up there and he got barred from there let me tell you something my husband would not hurt a fly or a child and he didn't go there like it was a daycare center even though that's whats it looks like on the outside now he came up there to hang around with adults my husband is a God fearing Christ centered harmless man and is the most kind generous loving man and would give his shirt off his back to help someone or just be a friend He misses all his friends up there and also the regular attenders up there we see at other clubs always say hi to us or we chat and the last one was Bruce the bartender at Marys. My husband is a grown man and if he was concerned about his safety something would have happened to him along time ago

    ReplyDelete
  11. I especially agree with the last part. I've known lots of bar owners and some allow staff to give away drinks occasionally. It really does make a customer feel special to slip them free ones now and then. That said, it's always meticulously tracked.

    Any bar that sells $7000 worth of drinks in a month and only has $3000 to show for it and has absolutely no clue where the money went shouldn't be in business (or should be desperately running an investigation to find out who needs to be arrested).

    I understand producers want to manufacture drama, but the "let's head to the office, girls" scene was laughably pitiful. You walk up to girls you've never met, invite them to a closet sized office where they have to share a chair and stand over them yelling to get their goddamned tops off... really? This is what he's supposed to be doing every night and no one's called the cops on him?!?

    Like others have said, I'd love to see the show get back to its original premise of teaching bar owners how to take advantage of the science to improve business - whether that means advertising/signage, drinks or food, staff training - whatever. I'm just getting a little tired of how every owner is the biggest scumbag Taffer's ever seen, but he's willing to drop 50-100k on renovating the place anyway. Like the other rescue shows, the only assumption I can make is that there are very few hard working owners who actually keep the place clean who are miserably failing...

    ReplyDelete
  12. Diamond, I totally respect your right to post, but I have to respectfully disagree.
    "This type of business" should try to eliminate drama and the majority owner, Bill, was the primary cause of DRAMA! Bill completely and utterly disrespected his wife, committed sexual harassment with an employee and sexually harassed a customer? I understand that there might be some employee drama, but this is far and beyond that! I believe the producers do not try to avoid drama and they actually encourage the drama.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Sam, very well said. I hope Jon and/or the producers read this site and get it!

    ReplyDelete
  14. Stephanie, is your husband on some "alert" type website?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Bill, what "agreement"? On the show I believe Bill agreed to have his wife more of a manager? Taking back a former employee that left under sketchy circumstances can be a "slippery slope". Unless of course the dialog/drama between them was created for "reality TV"?

    ReplyDelete
  16. BillownerthirstsmarysoutpostMay 6, 2014 at 1:05 PM

    No, wasn't for tv. Kimmie rehired her because we agreed the whole circumstance with Nikki was me manipulating a sweet little semi-naive waitress. Kimmie agreed to bring her back because she's a very hard worker and I stay away from the bar now. What they didn't show in the episode was Nikki making me feel an inch tall for everything.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Bill-owner of Thirst's/Mary'sMay 6, 2014 at 1:11 PM

    No, wasn't for tv. Kimmie rehired her because we agreed the whole circumstance with Nikki was me manipulating a sweet little semi-naive waitress. Kimmie agreed to bring her back because she's a very hard worker and I stay away from the bar now. What they didn't show in the episode was Nikki making me feel an inch tall for everything.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Bill-owner of Thirst's/Mary'sMay 6, 2014 at 1:14 PM

    Thanks Diamond! Obviously not everyone agrees with you :)

    ReplyDelete
  19. Bill-owner of Thirst's/Mary'sMay 6, 2014 at 1:42 PM

    No, wasn't for tv. Kimmie rehired her because we agreed the whole circumstance with Nikki was me manipulating a sweet little semi-naive waitress. Kimmie agreed to bring her back because she's a very hard worker and I stay away from the bar now. What they didn't show in the episode was Nikki making me feel an inch tall for everything.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Bill-owner of Thirst's/Mary'sMay 6, 2014 at 1:45 PM

    The numbers are real

    ReplyDelete
  21. I very strongly disagree that the producers "encourage" drama, that's just complete and utter nonsense. Jon and co stuck around because they felt bad for the guy's wife and kids and didn't want to abndon them when they really needed his help, so I can totally understand why he didn't give up on them.

    Don't get me wrong I was really pissed off by the guy's antics as well, but at the same time, it would've been hard to pull out of the rescue without feeling guilty due to the family situation and whatnot.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Your welcome man! Always nice to see an owner make a turn-around.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Don't really see how the show has strayed from it's original premise, it still feels very much like the same show to me.

    Not EVERY owner is made out to be the biggest "scumbag" Jon has ever met, that's a massive exaggeration. Some owners just have more problems then others that's all.

    He was willing to help the place because the guy had a wife and kids and didn't want them to suffer, what's so hard to understand about that?

    ReplyDelete
  24. They "get it" just fine, I think considering their expertise they know a little bit more about the bar business then you do.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Diamond, I totally respect your posting and I hope you would respect mine? In several of these threads its now a reoccurring theme that the show has lost it's "focus" and gotten away from the "bar science" aspect. There have also been several issues with permits/licenses, etc...
    I have well over (30) years experience in the industry.

    ReplyDelete
  26. I think that the "drama" in the last two episodes was very manufactured! Have you looked at the Oasis/Taza thread? The owner is answering serious questions/allegations. Also, the Scottsdale comedy Owner is replying to people.
    Please don't get me wrong! I like Jon and BR, its just changing

    ReplyDelete
  27. Bill, You're very lucky to have such an understanding wife! Many people have been divorced for much less that the display you put on TV. Again, was this an "act" for the cameras or status quo for your business? How is your partner doing?
    BTW - could you please respond to the lady regarding the memorial ceiling tiles?

    ReplyDelete
  28. Bill-owner of Thirst's/Mary'sMay 6, 2014 at 4:35 PM

    All of the above. It wasn't just women we we're go I g drinks to. We have a lot of good customers we wanted to reward. But the theory was we buy one for them at cost and tend to buy rounds for us and normally their group of 6-8 people. But don't get me wrong. We (that means Joe too!) I'm not letting him off that ez) drank a l

    ReplyDelete
  29. Bill-owner of Thirst's/Mary'sMay 6, 2014 at 4:36 PM

    Oops... Drank a lot too.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Bill-owner of Thirst's/Mary'sMay 6, 2014 at 4:42 PM

    No, I was really a scum. Sometimes it takes a good kick in the ass to wake you up.

    It's not really appropriate for me to respond for Stephanie, but if she's as proud of him as she says she'll give you the scoop..

    ReplyDelete
  31. Bill, thanks for responding and being so honest! Owning a bar can sometimes be "like a kid in a candy store"! lol There's nothing wrong with the use of "comp" as a reward or inducement to guests, but it has to be judicious and justifiable. As you've seen, drinking while working is not a good mix?

    ReplyDelete
  32. Bill, Again, THANK YOU for responding and being honest! I am very happy for you and your family that you now see and are taking appropriate action.
    I meant Anne at top of the thread (ceiling tiles) not Stephanie with her falsely accused hubby!

    ReplyDelete
  33. Well I don't think it was "manufactured" at all, it seemed plenty real to me, and yes I obviously did read the Taza thread, did you not see my posts replying to the owner?

    ReplyDelete
  34. Never said I didn't respect your opinion,I simply do not agree with it at all. I don't really care if it's a "recurring theme" in these threads or not, that doesn't automatically mean it's correct.

    Those "issues" with permits we're not at all the fault of BR, if you're refering to the Rocky Point Cantina, it was the owners own damn fault for not getting the proper permits in the first place.

    I don't think the show has gotten away from bar science at all.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Diamond, Again, we'll have to agree to disagree! Yes, I did see your posts and was curious whether you saw Jesse's? Jesse clearly stated that the "producers" told him to leave the weekend's trash for filming, that the restroom was broken and locked and that Jon and BR were aware that his license demanded he sell tobacco to maintain it?
    So, I'm not a lawyer or anything, but there's at least a few examples of "manufactured"?

    ReplyDelete
  36. Diamond, Per my other response to you. I am not referring to Rocky Point Cantina, that's a wholly different can of worms to open. I was referring to Jesse's post that Jon and BR were well aware of his license constraints and still suggested a "rescue" that failed to address it. It has come up in several other episodes (Handlebar, Scottsdale Comedy, etc...) about failure to permit properly, although I have posted that might be left to the local contractor versus BR?
    If BR didn't have some complicity in the "permit issues" than why are they voluntarily helping Howard and paying for the work that hadn't been permitted properly?

    ReplyDelete
  37. Diamond, I appreciate your response, to elaborate on my previous post. I totally respect your disagreeing with me. However, anything that is reoccurring, repeated and documented leads any reasonable person to believe that there is something there? Ultimately, you're absolutely right it is the owner's responsibility, however a few times it seems they have been left "holding the bag" after the fact at the hands of BR and Jon.

    ReplyDelete
  38. I don't know about this Howard guy, he came across as somewhat shady to me so i'm less then inclined to believe that everything he says is true.

    ReplyDelete
  39. You're right, I exaggerated. And?

    In Taffer's opening speech to staff he always claims that he's been in the business since the first desperate caveman decided he was risky enough to drink the fruit juice that had gone bad and that, since then, his input has been responsible for every successful bar on the planet (you're probably going to accuse me of exaggerating again).

    Given the amount of experience and number of bars he's dealt with, you don't think Taffer's exaggerating when he says "I've never seen a place so filthy!!" (something I've heard more than once)? It's not Taffer alone, Gordon Ramsey runs into the filthiest restaurant or worst food he's ever encountered a couple of times a month. It's part of the whole "rescue" schtick. I was just saying that it's happening more than before and the focus has shifted from the place is filthy to the owner is a scumbag.

    The original premise (or at least as I understood it) was that there are well intentioned but clueless bar owners who are failing because they don't understand the bar science. The current premise (or at least it seems to me) is Taffer enjoys screaming at people who don't give a shit about their bars. The manufactured scenes are becoming a more blatant device for Taffer to get all upset so he can walk in and start screaming at people the moment he's through the door.

    Maybe it's a better formula from a ratings standpoint, but I'd prefer the old idea of educating good but clueless owners to let's see how much abuse someone's willing to take for a free remodel.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Kim is seriously beautiful and could have her pick so Bill must be doing something right!

    To be honest I just watch the show so I can come here and read the comments. Seeing what was real or not has become the fun of the show.

    ReplyDelete
  41. When he said Headhunters was the worst bar he had ever seen, I HIGHLY doubt he was exaggerating, i've never seen anyplace that looked as filthy and disgusting as that joint, i'd love to hear steve come on here and try and defend his terrible business practices.

    Once again, I don't think the show has at all strayed from the "original premise", Taffer has been screaming at people who deserve it since the first season(remember Ami from from Zanzabar when he called Brian Duffy "fatboy? Jon screamed at him far worse then he did at anybody this season)

    The "old idea" is still very much around, maybe it just seems different because we've had far more episodes this season then we did for the first two.

    I don't think it's "shifted" filthy places and scumbag owners tend to go hand-in-hand.

    I don't think Gordon's exaggerating either, he said the U.S. restaurants he remodeled looked far worse then any of places he visited in the original UK version of KN.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Diamond, Ok, so to you Howard seems "shady"? I think that he was very honest and self-deprecating in his responses on here, not unlike Bill or Jesse? Not withstanding Howard, a brief google search revealed that there has been some kind of "issue" with at least (7) rescues (mostly permits and lawsuits) so a little over 12%. Currently about (11) out of (57) have closed, so almost 20%. That means that about 32% have closed or had issues of some kind with BR. (National average is 1 out of 4 fail in first year, so Jon is a little ahead of the national curve.)
    A second google search of "is bar rescue real or fake" reveals a plethora of stories and anecdotes about the show and it's basis in "reality". Jesse from Oasis/Taza clearly stated that the producers deliberately advised them to omit things and do certain things for the show. Suffice to say that no "Reality TV" is REAL
    I like the show, although I think that they could do better. It's apparent that they are trying to fix some of their mistakes.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Of course no Reality TV is "real", but that dosen't mean all owners claims are automatically true either. Considering that the owners on BR do to come off looking good, they have good reason to lie about the show being "fake", not saying they all are. But for people like the O'Face owners, it's very hard not to doubt their claims.

    Don't really care about what a google search says, Gordon Ramsay's original UK KN also had several accusations of being "fake", but no one could ever prove it, so a search dosen't really mean much of anything to me, maybe some parts are staged, but that does make the entire show "fake".

    ReplyDelete
  44. Diamond, You're totally and utterly misunderstanding my meaning. It is pointless to continue beating a dead horse. I am not saying that the entire show or what Jon does is fake. I simply cited several examples of how certain aspects of the show are moving more and more towards manufactured drama and the quality of the show has dropped.

    This point could be successfully argued either way, obviously there are "rescues" that went well and everyone is happy. We often tend to dwell on the negative versus the positive. Suffice to say that I like the show, but we all have to agree that it isn't reality.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Well, I (and almost everyone I've seen post an opinion on the subject) will have to just agree to disagree with you.

    I feel like more emphasis is being placed on the (often apparently manufactured) drama than on using Taffer's experience and knowledge to make a business function better. The bar science aspect fascinates me. I always get intrigued and wonder if darker tables equating to longer stays is a causal thing or if there are other factors.

    Yes, there has always been screaming, but in early episodes there were many occasions where he'd calmly walk in to talk to people. In recent episodes, there's always SOMETHING (again, often something that looks laughably staged) to make him say, "That's it, I can't watch any more! I'm putting a stop to this!", so he can hit the scene yelling at the top of his lungs.

    If you don't see this trend, I'm happy for you. I wish I didn't...

    ReplyDelete
  46. I don't think the drama is "manufactured" at all, I think it only seems amplified because there's more episodes this season.

    ReplyDelete
  47. I know, i'm not saying you specfically were saying that, I was saying that alot of those claims in Google searches were saying that the entire show was "faked".

    I don't think the "quality" has dropped at all, this season has had some really great episodes.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Diamond, I never said the entire show was a "fake"; I simply pointed out examples of problems with the show ranging from permits, to failures, to "producer" interventions. You will always get extremes of anything on a google search, but us as rational, thinking people come to our own educated conclusions. In would hope that you're willing to admit that the show is not 100% real and some aspects are contrived?
    As far as "quality"; there have been (9) episodes this season. we can immediately reduce that to (8) because O-Face was not actually rescued.
    Quite frankly, the producers opted for "drama" as they aired an episode that never involved any rescue.
    Anyway, (8) remain:
    #1 O'Banion's / Sorties - Still negative reviews
    #2 KC's / Johnson - Changed back, regulars unhappy + if they had done their homework they would have known about the ownership issue
    #3 O'Face - Mentioned
    #4 Scoreboard / Agave - A success
    #5 Tailgate / Shot Exchange - Owner applied 5X??? Mixed Reviews
    #6 Bryants / Wildcatter - Very Neutral reviews (one source)
    #7 Pat's / Pat's - So far a total loser
    #8 Oasis / Taza - Several issues, returned to mixed prior concept due to license issue BR was aware of and failed to address
    #9 Mary's / Thirsty's - Several issues
    The above is based on this website, since you post here I assume you believe what they post. So out of (8), realistically we can call (2-3) a success? If you consider that "quality" than your definition is vastly different than mine?

    ReplyDelete
  49. Again, I NEVER said YOU said that, i'm saying that many of those others I found in a google search made the claim that the entire show was fake.

    Whether it's "quality" or not is a matter of opinion, and in mine it is still very much so.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Diamond, as stated, we each have to arrive at our own educated opinion regarding any google search. I simply weighed a great deal of evidence from several sources and came to the conclusion that certain aspect of the show are embellished / staged.
    As far as the quality of this season so far, I used this site's notes to prove that it is so, so.. 2-3 out of 9 is not so good... How do you quantify "quality"? I use Jon's which is success!
    As far as O'Face, the show is called Bar Rescue, not Bar Drama. There was no rescue hence no show???

    ReplyDelete
  51. Diamond, as Jon repeats every episode "I do not embrace excuses; I embrace solutions". It is demonstrated that he and BR didn't offer viable "solutions" to several of the (9) bars so far this season!
    That, to me, speaks to the quality of the show this season.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Thanks for responding Bill. By looking at your responses to Food Dude below, am I correct to assume then that even when drinks were "comped", you had to pay tax on them?

    ReplyDelete
  53. Diamond, I do have to back up the point about the encouragement of the drama. However, I will temper it by saying that they encourage the drama that is largely extant in the working dynamics of the bar. The only cases of outright manufactured drama I know of ("All-in" James, and the fight/ employee slap at OFace) were instigated by the staff themselves.

    ReplyDelete
  54. David, thanks for joining the dialogue. I absolutely agree with you regarding enjoyment! I feel that there is a distinct difference between "success" and "quality". Your barometer for "success" is somewhat simplistic, in that simply being open is not truly "success". Many businesses can minimally survive without any real success?
    Jon Taffer has over (35) years and over (700+) bars under his belt.
    A chef knows how to cook an egg over (100) ways. Maybe Jon needs to breakout more "science" and less "drama". It's becoming too "formula" this season in my humble opinion...

    ReplyDelete
  55. The occasional permit problems seem to be a thing of the past.

    Jesse has admitted that it would not have been at all difficult to switch back to a Class C license and operate as a night club.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Quite obviously, even if we overlook the limits of a 3-day "rescue", when you're limiting your interventions to businesses that are already failing, some are going to be beyond help. These bars are not selected at random.

    ReplyDelete
  57. But the bar owners have no responsibility, in your book, for ignoring Jon's advice. It's all on him, even when they revert to the former name, model, and managerial incompetence. The bar that complained that they dropped the food menu because nobody told them how to find a food wholesaler? Clearly Taffer's fault, right?

    ReplyDelete
  58. Thanks, FD! Let me elaborate a bit. I predicate this on the assumption that with no interventions, these bars would all have shut down within the months they usually claim (as a side note, I wonder if there were any places shut the doors before BR could get to them?). Bearing that in mind, the simple fact that the places still exist means that they are more successful than they were before. Of course there are tons of variables which come into play. For instance, should we count Piratz Tavern as a "success" for the show? They utterly rejected pretty much everything Taffer did in that episode and went directly back to the pirate theme, and somehow they are still open. On the other side of that coin, Swanky Bubbles reverted to their old name shortly after the episode and soon went under. Should this count as a "failure" for BR? Judging how successful this show ultimately is is alomost as difficult as judging whather or not a movie is profitable! However, I believe my way is roughly correct.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Actually, i agree that more bar science would be a welcome addition. What is the bar science behind picnic tables, for example?

    ReplyDelete
  60. You claim to be in the industry, but buy the notion that the garbage accumulation and location represented how a responsible business would store a weekend's trash? Remind me never to eat at one of your establishments. I can see why a producer, picturing a great "clean up this mess" scene, might say "leave it", but it takes a special type of incompetence to pile up your garbage in that manner such that there's something to leave for Jon. The rat was much better drama, and the staff didn't appear particularly concerned with finding it.

    Why do you find it acceptable that a bar would have a broken and locked restroom?

    The license issue wasn't an issue at all, as it's easy to switch from a Class CCB license back to Class C.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Aaron, actually Jesse responded
    "If when we tried the no hookahs and minors we saw a spike in business then I would have gone the route to try change to a Class C liquor license (which involves a decent amount of money and meetings with the City Council and the NLLC)".
    I don't think that that Jesse "admitted" what you're stating? I also think he was predisposed to wanting hookah, as well. He claims it was a strictly financial decision.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Jon -"I do not embrace excuses, I embrace solutions". Do you believe that "existing" is a solution for a failing place? I would think that a solution is a successful bar, not an existing bar?

    ReplyDelete
  63. Diamond, Every consultant uses the quality and cleanliness as a ruse to bring people to attention. Typically, the most recent is always the dirtiest and the worst. lol It's a slight generalization, but fairly accurate.
    In season #1 he was defending one of his experts against a jerk. In season
    #5 he walked out of a dysfunctional place without ever rescuing it?
    The season episode count has remained the same except season # 3?
    Seasons, #1, #2 #4 all 10
    Season # 3 - 20
    Season # 5 - 9 so far (I believe it will be 10 also)

    ReplyDelete
  64. Sam, exactly my point all along. I agree 1000%!

    ReplyDelete
  65. Diamond,
    Except Season #3 always same episode count?

    ReplyDelete
  66. Aaron, we will have to agree to disagree? If taking your premise it's so easy to "switch" than why didn't Jon and BR do so when they knew their rescue would violate his license terms?

    ReplyDelete
  67. David
    You're absolutely right, they encourage "extremes"! Extremes in behavior, dirtiness, etc...

    ReplyDelete
  68. Lets try to keep the comments on this post about Thirsty's so others reading the comments do not have to root through your general thoughts about the show.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Matt, my apologies, the two most recent episodes got crisscrossed here due to a thread of active responses from several posters. I will make sure I keep to each update. Thank you

    ReplyDelete
  70. BillownerofthirstsmarysMay 7, 2014 at 12:29 AM

    It was a logo rule. They covered absolutely every single logo I'm the bar if they couldn't remove it. They didn't allow any clothing with logos. For some reason they were telling people they couldnt wear cowboy hats. Don't understand that one. The gentlemen Anne is referring to is a decades old daytime customer who came that night to support us. I was elsewhere but I was told he had a USA hat and jacket on and was refused entry.

    ReplyDelete
  71. We don't know exactly when these were filmed, i'm guessing this episode was filmed well after the O'Face episode.

    He moved forward because he didn't want the guy's kids and wife to suffer. You don't really need to encourage drama in a business like this, it just comes naturally with this type of business.

    ReplyDelete
  72. I really don't see what point you're trying to make about the episode, why shouldn't there have been an episode about O'Face just cause the asshole owners were completely beyond helping?

    That was one case where the producers got WAY more drama then they could've possibly anticapted, i'm glad that episode aired, as it's a good cautionary tale that will hopefully serve as a lesson to other owners out there.

    ReplyDelete
  73. No, the solutions weren't "Bad" per se, they were good ideas that just didn't work as well as they could've due to a variety of issue(one of which is the owners going back to their old ways and not putting much effort into making the new concept work, not saying that's the case with all the owners, but I don't think it's a stretch to say that it is the case with at least some of the owners).

    So I think it's silly to judge the "quality" based on that, I don't think that "speaks" for anything

    ReplyDelete
  74. I don't think so, all the times bars have closed down was due to either their own incompetence(Swanky Bubbles, Rocky Point Cantina, Headhunters) circumstances completely beyond anyone's control(Win Place or Show), or the owner voluntarily giving up(Gipsy, J.A. Murphy's)

    ReplyDelete
  75. Yeah, i'll take drama over that any day LOL

    ReplyDelete
  76. Dosen't feel like "formula" to me at all, there hasn't been a single episode without at least some drama, some owners just happen to be more dramatic then others, that's just how things get in the business

    ReplyDelete
  77. Well existing is still a hell of a lot better then closing, so I think that's good enough

    ReplyDelete
  78. No he's not, he's spot off.

    ReplyDelete
  79. Stephanie BrittainMay 7, 2014 at 1:47 AM

    no alert website just on a sex offender registry for life and he should not be on there

    ReplyDelete
  80. Extreme, perhaps, but extant nonetheless.........

    ReplyDelete
  81. Bill
    Thanks for responding.
    I understand registered logos, because the producers would probably need clearances for them to appear on TV? However I don't understand cowboy hats (in TX?) or the "USA" logo?
    What's the story on the ceiling tiles?

    ReplyDelete
  82. David,
    "extant" is not success? A poorly operated business can linger for a long time prior to failure. While lingering or existing is when they run up debts and more problems prior to closing?
    I totally respect your opinion, but I think that Jon's expectation for the rescue is more than mere existence?

    ReplyDelete
  83. Diamond, Matt has asked me to restrict my comments to the updates and not the show in general.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Stephanie, that is outside of the context of this thread. I do not know the details, so I cannot comment.

    ReplyDelete
  85. This explains why I stopped watching it a few months ago. It used to be interesting for the reasons you explained above (even with the manufactured drama since the very first episode), but now the show has ran its course.

    ReplyDelete
  86. Bill-owner of Thirst's/Mary'sMay 7, 2014 at 12:03 PM

    Got no idea about the hats. You'd think they'd want those to show a flavor of the Texas especially with the new theme. The tiles have been sold for over 20 years now to raise money for our holiday charity. We'd stencil pretty much anything you wanted on them. We also put up memorial tiles for customers who died or others that died in Afgahinistan/Iraq. I guess there was a miscommunication since at least the memorial tiles were supposed to be taken down, but got painted over also. We're in the process of restenciling over the black so it will be all good soon.

    ReplyDelete
  87. Bill-owner of Thirst's/Mary'sMay 7, 2014 at 12:06 PM

    Let me know if I didn't address this. I thought I did.

    ReplyDelete
  88. Bill-owner of Thirst's/Mary'sMay 7, 2014 at 12:12 PM

    What we were told after the makeover was to "make it ours now" meaning add the touches we thought we needed. The bars that totally revert aside, I'm sure bars are going to take that farther than others. We probably made more changes than some, but we evaluated our situation and customers, took their comments to heart and made changes we felt any new customer would appreciate as well.

    ReplyDelete
  89. Bill-owner of Thirst's/Mary'sMay 7, 2014 at 12:23 PM

    I'm curious how people find out how many times a company applied

    ReplyDelete
  90. Bill, thanks again for your responses! So you effectively communicated to BR that the memorial tiles needed to be preserved? Not necessarily part of the "rescue", but preserved for posterity?
    I totally respect that you're restoring them on your own dime!

    ReplyDelete
  91. Bill, thanks for response. Mat has requested that I contain my comments to the context of each update thread and not generalizations about the show. to answer your question, the 5x was posted here on this site on the updates tab. It was the Tailgate/Shot bar.

    ReplyDelete
  92. Bill-owner of Thirst's/Mary'sMay 7, 2014 at 12:54 PM

    I replied to this earlier, but I'm on my cell phone and it doesn't seem to always work when I post. Yes, all alcohol has to be accounted for even comped. This is my partners area so he could speak more to it, but the idea is to pay tax on the liquor sold based on the number of shots we get from a bottle of liquor. Comped drinks are taxed as if we has sold it. Basically your revenue better match the liquor and beer you bought from your distributors.

    ReplyDelete
  93. Bill-owner of Thirst's/Mary'sMay 7, 2014 at 1:17 PM

    Y'all I can't speak for any other episode, but here's Thirsty's/Mary's experience. First, we haven't totally committed to the new name because a bar up the road had basically the same name (Thursty's) which closed down as an even more unsuccessful bar with a poor reputation, so we're very concerned about ant confusion. We're not sure what we'll end up doing. I don't know whether BR was aware of this.

    As for the reality of it, as I mentioned below we were never asked to stage anything. Every nasty thing found was there. All of the drama was there. The makeover was real. John T is an asshole in the beginning if you consider yelling at me being an asshole.

    As for staged, that's not our experience. What my experience was, he puts me in a situation and left me to respond how I wanted. He sent in two hot chicks to see if I'd be the Bill portrayed in the interviews. Even though I suspected these two were the plants (trust me, on a Monday night with maybe 15 people in the bar, the odds of this quality ladies walking in is very small). And no one in Grand Prairie has a doo like that. He gave me the opportunity and I bit as I might have in any similar situation. The office doesn't always happen, buying drinks was always going to happen.

    No, I don't have any reason to defend the show. Actually I was very unhappy with much of it, but in fairness to the show we invites them and John did as he thought was best. I don't want anyone to think we were completely dissatisfied with the result. They made plenty of improvements that needed to be made and for that we're very grateful. But as the old adage goes, "careful what you wish for."

    ReplyDelete
  94. Bill-owner of Thirst's/Mary'sMay 7, 2014 at 1:40 PM

    Also, true there was a lot of drama at our bar, but it wasn't for show or a distraction. It was the source of the bar's problems for all the reasons he pointed out It wasn't that we didn't have customers show up, it's that I chased off the very demographic we needed most. Joe and I gave away drinks to the tune of thousands of $, and everything else had an impact on moral. I'm sure that was the main reason we were selected. Maybe they didn't have to include as much on video, but there was enough that it would have been to avoid.

    ReplyDelete
  95. Bill-owner of Thirst's/Mary'sMay 7, 2014 at 1:53 PM

    I thought I was pretty clear about it, but there are so many people with their fingers in the pie the person that needed to know, didn't. Of course I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt. I guess something in the back of my mind told me something like that might happen, so I took pics of most of the tiles and all of the memorial tiles.

    ReplyDelete
  96. Bill-owner of Thirst's/Mary'sMay 7, 2014 at 3:25 PM

    No, it was just to tempting to pass up. Besides, maybe I was wrong and they would! I know, I know, sleazy. But in my defense, I didn't have to ask all of them. Amazing what some girls would do for a shot... I mean before I learned my lesson.

    ReplyDelete
  97. Actually I was saying that the behavior that was pushed to extemes was extant......

    ReplyDelete
  98. Maybe they were worried about the hats blocking out things in their shots?

    ReplyDelete
  99. I'll bet dollars to donuts that it had mainly to do with their location. As I'm sure you're noticed, BR tends to do a few bars in the same general area to save on production costs. My guess is applications 1-4, they weren't looking to do other bars in that same area, but on #5 they were.

    ReplyDelete
  100. Was it? I didn't know that. Well, Mr. "All-In" and crew were undeserving of such a wonderful invention anyways!

    ReplyDelete
  101. FD, this is all relative, not absolute. Also, the variables that need to be quantified are near impossible to do just from the internet. There's a perfect example of it on this page. The author managed to track down the bar's tax receipts for mixed drinks online. A quick look at the numbers made it appear that business either went down after BR left, or there was some funny business going on with accounting, and that's what was written. Turns out the truth was something totally different and we wouldn't have known it had Bill not come to the site and commented here. To get the true picture, you'd have to go to every bar, audit their books, interview the owners and employees, and observe the place in operation. That's a full time job right there, and I would be first in line to apply for it if it paid well enough....

    ReplyDelete
  102. Matt, are you going to modify your conclusions on the tax receipts based upon the information Bill has provided here?

    ReplyDelete
  103. Yes, I remember reading, before Bar Rescue Updates came online, on another website (probably a local newspaper article) that the Butt Funnel was removed because customers (mainly female patrons) were complaining about the "barrier" around the dance floor. There was even a review by a woman on Yelp or a similar website who was asking about who was the 'idiot' was who came up with this.

    ReplyDelete
  104. You are missing the 1000 Lb gorilla in the room. Yes 1 out of 4 bars fail in the first year, and yes John has a 32% failure rate / issue rate. But he is starting with a 100% failure rate for the Bars we is working with. To have a bar that is porly managed, and to go in and turn them around, to the tone of a 68% sucess rate is amazing. Jon does a great job and I love the show. I agree get rid of the fake drama, keep the real, and focus on the science.

    ReplyDelete
  105. You really need to read more of the updates, or investigate the struggling and failing bars, as you overlook a lot of facts in your zeal to fingerpoint at Mr. Taffer.

    ReplyDelete
  106. The "bar science" seemed to relate primarily to height, not comfort - although I hope there's some bar science associated with comfort, as well. In fast food, there are designs for seating that are comfortable for about twenty minutes, then start to wear on you -- gotta turn over that table.

    I suspect that the biggest reason why we've seen a couple of bars replace their "Bar Rescue" bar stools is that good bar stools are expensive. Here the complaint seems to be that they weren't comfortable. In the other case I recall, the complaint was that the seats weren't durable.

    Good for the bar for replacing the uncomfortable stools, although if you recall the condition of the original bar stools that's something that should have been done some years ago.

    I wish there were a bit more of an element of "This Old House" in bar rescue, with some of the stakeholders putting in some of their own cash and taking a greater role in the redesign. The problems with owner contribution are that most of the owners seem ill-positioned to contribute financially (and the show emphasizes the financial straits of the owners, such that an owner contribution might seem inconsistent with its premise), and that it would undermine the surprise/reveal portion of the show. But even at that, "If you can chip in $50/seat, we can upgrade you to awesome bar stools" would seem to be something they could build into the model.

    ReplyDelete
  107. They did not ignore the limitation. That conceit exists only in your imagination. They proposed a new model that was compatible with a Class C liquor license, a type of license you must hold before applying for a Class CCB license, and Jesse has confirmed that he could easily have switched back had he chosen to do so.

    It's not a matter of "agreeing to disagree". The facts are what they are. You can verify the facts with the liquor control board, if you choose.

    ReplyDelete
  108. I'm not attacking you personally. You made claims about your experience and expertise then, in your ongoing zeal to fingerpoint at Bar Rescue, suggested that it was somehow the show's fault that Oasis heaps its garbage inside its premises rather than removing it to another location. You now agree with me that the practice is indefensible. The claim that a producer recognized that fact, as well, and wanted the trash heap preserved for Jon being duly noted, it simply is not the case that Bar Rescue caused the trash heap to be created.


    You say all you want about converting a Class CCB license back to a Class C license, but nobody else - not even Jesse - is supporting your contentions that it would be difficult.

    ReplyDelete
  109. Bill, you're a hoot. Thank you for being so honest.

    ReplyDelete
  110. Bill-owner of Thirst's/Mary'sMay 8, 2014 at 5:39 PM

    Damn. Sorry y'all. I feel like I ruined the discussion.

    ReplyDelete
  111. Don't be. People are very passionate about this show, and thus hold very strong opinions about it. I, for one, appreciate you coming here and answering questions.

    ReplyDelete
  112. I'll second what David said.

    All of us here are pretty much speculating about how the show functions and it's nice to get input from someone who's experienced the process first hand.

    ReplyDelete
  113. Bill-owner of Thirst's/Mary'sMay 8, 2014 at 11:40 PM

    Since y'all are the only people I've been sharing thoughts with I figured I'd share this. I've been out of town since the show aired. My first night in the bar and I'm amazed at the response. There are women actually giving Pinky shit and giving me dirtier looks that I seriously have my back against the wall. No exaggeration. I knew I wouldn't come out looking like a Boy Scout, but I totally underestimated the reaction the episode would receive. I'd only watched the show a couple of times, I had no idea how many people watch it. I can live with the anger directed my way, it's well deserved, but I think people have been way too unfair to Pinky. The girl is 25 and not exactly wordly. An older man manipulates her and she comes out as so evil. I understand everybody makes their own decisions, but I wish they'd consider that. Not that y'all have said anything negative.

    ReplyDelete
  114. Matt, I really think you should update this posting based upon what Bill has shared with us here.

    ReplyDelete
  115. Yeah, BR is Spike's highest rated show. Unfortunately, there is a price to be paid for airing dirty laundry on a reality TV show. I'm sure that what was portrayed in the episode has stirred up the resentment in every woman who's ever had their husband or significant other cheat on them, or even stare at another woman's ass in their presence. I hope you all weather the storm. Besides, things could be worse, you could be the crew of the OFace bar!

    ReplyDelete
  116. David, thanks for input. That may very well be the case? I thought maybe clearances (you know how they have to sometimes "blur" items in shots).

    ReplyDelete
  117. David, above Matt asked me to stay on point here. My apologies to you, misunderstood your point about "extant". Thank you

    ReplyDelete
  118. Bill, THANK YOU for responding! This is exactly what I meant, Bill and his team gleaned things from the "rescue" and then acted accordingly to build their bar.
    I think some "reversions" were, in fact, the rescuee taking ownership and trying to build on what BR did.

    ReplyDelete
  119. David, very well written! I absolutely agree.

    ReplyDelete
  120. Aaron, excellent points! I was referring to Swanky Bubbles, I think? the "bar science" had to do with the size and back of the stool and how certain stools encourage conversation and allow more stools per linear foot. I agree comfort is a major criteria, as well.
    I think the "this Old House" idea is great! However, I think taking total control over the rescue gives Jon and BR more creative control and to the big reveal. Unfortunately, I agree with you, I'd like to see the process more interactive. I think that if it were more interactive with greater explanation of Jon's "bar science" behind his concept we'd see less recuee's returning to former concept.

    ReplyDelete
  121. Rigid, thanks for the update! believe that all "bar science" may not always work? lol

    ReplyDelete
  122. Rigid, thanks for the update! I totally understand the concept of the "Butt Funnel", but can see how some gusts may not like it? also, may create issues with egress on some larger dance floors.

    ReplyDelete
  123. David, that could very well be the case. I just thought that it was interesting that this site pointed that out for only that particular bar? Maybe Matt can speak to why?

    ReplyDelete
  124. Dave, You're absolutely right! Many of these bars would fail anyway and many would simply flounder along like they are currently doing? We'll really never know?

    ReplyDelete
  125. Bill, thank you very much for responding and your unfailing honesty! Your post is probably reflective of a majority of recuees.

    ReplyDelete
  126. David, totally agree!

    ReplyDelete
  127. Bill, thank you for letting us all know your true experiences.

    ReplyDelete
  128. I agree also! Your insights have been invaluable to our speculation.

    ReplyDelete
  129. Bill, thanks for the update. I can totally understand the "reaction" from the show's airing. Since you've been so self-deprecating and honest I will also believe you regarding Pinky.
    Although, At (25) years old I think she needs to be personally responsible for her actions, as well.

    ReplyDelete
  130. "has issues of some kind with BR" =/= closed. so thats 20% of all rescues have closed, so Jon is behind the national stat. and considering that he deals with the worst of the worst, where damn near 100% would be closed if he didnt show up, he's doing great. the owners that dont listen to him are the problem, not BR.

    ReplyDelete
  131. maybe because they're in and out in less than a week? theres no way dealing with a govt entity goes smooth enough to decide to get a new license wednesday, and you have it by friday.

    jesse could have applied, gone to the meetings, and had it in a reasonable time table (guessing no more than a week or two), but he chose not to.

    so you cant agree to disagree. you can only deny, or agree that it wasnt BRs fault. they can provide the blueprint, but they dont have the time to deal with local bureaucracies.

    jess was obviously "predisposed" to wanting hookah, even if it wasnt viable compared to a night club. its always easier to slip back into old ways vs changing.

    ReplyDelete
  132. it certainly seems like the drama has been going up and up over the years, but the bar science frankly has remained about the same.

    i think a lot of people like you are nostalgic about the beginning and imagining that taffer was dropping science facts all the time, when in fact he wasnt.
    other than explaining a butt funnel like twice, or casually saying how fluorescent lights affect eyes, what really has he said? feel like he skips over way too many good opportunities for saying that a lot more, or things like seat comfort and height, or elaborate on how to place items on a menu to draw the eye and sell the food w/ best margins. he's never gone into great detail about this stuff, and whether that's because they think the average viewer doesnt want that, or taffer doesnt want to give away all his secrets, its not like they did it all the time and recently abandoned it in favor of drama.

    ReplyDelete
  133. sooooo a "dumbass" discovered your husband is a sex offender and yet youre the one whos mad? sounds like you need to take your problems to the gov if hes on there by some crazy accident, not here. accepting people of all ages, races, incomes, and orientations is TOTALLY different than accepting convicted sex offenders

    ReplyDelete
  134. No, it's more of a image/ego thing for Taffer

    ReplyDelete
  135. I use to hang out at this bar..but the name was different..until I went back into the Army in 07..had a lot of fun..karaoke was awesome. Staff was awesome..I look forward to going back.

    ReplyDelete
  136. I'm not necessarily nostalgic about how old BR episodes were, but the science aspect set it apart from other rescue shows because it demonstrated a tangible reason for the specifics of the remodel, as opposed to the normal "whatever the designer likes" plan.

    While the show definitely wasn't 40 minutes of solid bar science explanations, there was almost always at least one interesting fact dropped during the remodel planning segment. Recently it seems rare for Taffer to mention anything quantifiable except for the number of potential customers or competition in the area.

    Like I said, I just found it interesting to hear, "Did you know, putting blue napkins under drinks causes 11% more fights than using white napkins?", (a stat I completely made up, BTW). While that sort of thing took up less than 30 seconds of an episode, I always looked forward to it.

    ReplyDelete
  137. Right, how are not going to like something nicer? U want that old raggedy shit than go somewhere else. Classy people will come, probably with more money to spend anyway. Obviously the old way wasn't working cuz they were in debt so they needed a change with new clientele, people that will spend cash and not worry about petty shit like old bar stools that were all fucked off anyway

    ReplyDelete
  138. That show was the worst, I can't believe that dudes wife would just stay with him after he takes random girls to his office time after time. She's a grown woman, she knows what's going down. That dude was a pig.

    ReplyDelete
  139. Honest AND literate? Impressive.

    ReplyDelete
  140. Wow Bill! I applaud you for how honest you are. I was so upset after that episode, either it was fake which is irritating, or it was real which is awful- I know I"m just some stranger but to see your comment that you've taken took responsibility and have come around is just awesome, that takes a lot to do! So happy for you and your family, hope the business is doing well. .

    ReplyDelete
  141. Richard Donald JonesMay 25, 2014 at 1:13 PM

    How does a bar survive with only $4800 in gross receipts for the month. That should be a Saturday night

    ReplyDelete
  142. That's the tax they paid, not the gross sales.

    ReplyDelete
  143. Richard Donald JonesJune 2, 2014 at 1:12 PM

    Your right when you click the link it does say

    Gross Receipts Tax Receipts. So this is what they paid the state of Texas in taxes for that period?

    ReplyDelete
  144. Correct. More specifically, it's the tax the owners pay on the liquor consumed. Prior to this year, owners paid 14% tax. Starting in January, Texas cut the tax in more than half, and started charging sales tax on mixed drinks to make up the difference. That's the major reason why you see such a drop off in the tax receipts between December and January.

    ReplyDelete
  145. Richard Donald JonesJune 2, 2014 at 1:30 PM

    This is the stuff I miss with this show. Now its all Teffer screaming. What happened to Liquor Cost and Prime Cost. Foot traffic and comparing expenses with income. Almost no bar science left

    ReplyDelete
  146. I know that the "shocking" situation of this episode was fabricated, but I can't stand when blatant ignorance of certain things is encouraged. Firing the "girlfriend" because the missus objects? Can we say "lawsuit?" And she would have won without a problem. Taffer should know that.
    My boyfriend and I watch the show faithfully. Lately, it's been more of a chore, though. It's not about the fundamentals as much as it used to be. This season, it started being all about walking out, fights, throwing meatballs, strippers, etc. I miss the old shows.

    ReplyDelete
  147. I wasn't fabricated. The owner himself has commented on the situation here. Read through the comments.

    ReplyDelete
  148. I dont' know how that owner didnt' wind up in jail for sexual harrasment... "take your goddam shirt off" would result in a call to the cops in a *real* situation.....

    ReplyDelete
  149. The person who applied said how many times she applied.Usually nobody mentions that.

    ReplyDelete
  150. He is marketing his show on the premise that none of the bars could survive without him.We have no real idea how accurate that is.

    ReplyDelete
  151. OFace !! lol, they are the worst owners/employees in the history of business!

    ReplyDelete
  152. I'm going to make a road trip and bang Nikki. See you soon Nikki you little slut you! Love it!!!

    ReplyDelete