It is within our genetic make up to defend the weak. In this regard, poor vulnerable retail tenants look like a very genuine cause. The matter becomes particularly emotive as their 'tormentors', the faceless landlords, are perceived to be greedy developers and corporations squeez­ing the life out of struggling businesses.

There is no doubt retailers are suffering in the current climate – however, a little balance is required both in terms of the reality of the situation and the practicalities of the landlord and tenant relationship.

First, the reality. If we unveil the identity of 'faceless landlords' we will find the majority of the owners of these properties are insurance companies, pension funds and banks. Whether you like it or not, these institutions represent you, Joe Public, in the form of your life insurance, car insurance, house insurance and pension funds. From taxi drivers to stockbrokers, the asset managers representing these funds are seeking to maintain rental payments on your behalf. It would be negligent and contrary to the best interest of their clients to do otherwise.

It is ironic that these institutions, which are inextricably linked to the public, are actually the least flexible in terms of working with tenants to get them through these difficult times. In this context, it is again ironic that the most vilified of landlord groupings, the developers, are in my experience the most willing and able to facilitate genuine tenant representations.

In terms of the equity of the situation, there is another perspective which is seldom aired. When tenants were making 'supernormal' profits over the past number of years, paying rental levels fixed in 2003 or 2004 in high- street stores and shopping centres around the country, there weren't many of them looking to share these supernormal profits with their landlords. And why should they? They simply did a good deal when the market was weaker.

Conversely, those landlords whose properties are for review over the coming months will find it difficult to secure uplifts, meaning that rental and capital growth has come and gone without ever realising the rewards.

The unfortunate reality of this situation is that some geared landlords may fall into negative equity, requiring them to increase their equity contribution at a time when the income from their property is under threat due to failing tenants. This is akin to losing your job and then being asked to increase your mortgage payments.

It is time for the blame game to stop. Landlords and tenants need to avoid polarising and work together to ensure a positive outcome for both sides (or in most cases the least negative outcome).

In my experience as an asset manager, contrary to popular opinion, landlords are willing to consider genuine representations by tenants where rent is indeed the problem and there is a viable long-term business proposition.

However it is essential that an informed approach be taken to these representations by both sides.

An unsupported statement that a given tenant wants to pay 50% of their contracted rent may be as foolish as a flat rejection to consider any reduction at all.

If a tenant asks for a rent reduction they are essentially asking their landlord to invest in their business and the request should be approached accordingly. If a tenant's wage costs, stock costs, franchises costs etc are at unsustainable levels there is little point in extending them a rent reduction to suspend the inevitable.

The debate on retrospectively abolishing upward-only rent reviews is an ill-informed side show which is both populist and fundamentally damaging to our market, a market which is already in a very bad place.

Again there seems to be a loss of perspective at government level here as the state itself has the most to lose, via the bank guarantee and NAMA, and would be the principal loser if such a national and international blow to our reputation was delivered.

Ireland's reputation has been damaged enough over the past number of months without sending out the message that it is now also a place where parties who are commercially aware and professionally advised cannot conduct their business without state intervention.

In reality, the retail property market has for some time been adapting to the fact that the landlords' and tenants' interests need to be aligned.

Leases that cater for base rents of 70% to 80% of market value with turnover top-ups have been around for some time and rents with Consumer Price Index uplifts are also on the increase.

Similarly, 100% turnover- related rents are becoming more and more prevalent, especially over the past 12 months.

The very recent change in Irish law that permits landlord and tenant breaks in respect of retail property has allowed the development of this concept of aligning landlords and retail tenants' interests without damaging the industry.

Sledgehammer solutions are seldom successful and totally ill-advised in this instance.

Roderick Nowlan is investment director with Bannon Commercial