Who Should a franchisee hire to do due diligence?

If Joe V.P. is coming out of the corporate world, and wants to open a franchise in a field in which he has not experience, what sort of consultant should he hire to assist him with due diligence?

The victims are getting angry!!

From reading on BMM there are so many complaints from zee's. Isn't it proof enough that something is wrong out there. A guest replied to my comment about killer dd. They said you only need about two or four weeks to do dd. What does that tell you? People do not understand the serious committment of buying a zee. We took longer to do dd. We still got fleeced. The only solution is to never never buy a zee. Besides it isn't your business. So far I have read so many complaints against most of the franchises. Why would anyone trust a zor? I am not bitter. Just hurt that so many people are being hurt.

on February 17th, 2008

I just saw on the interenet

an article of a new 123 fit couple opening with a great view. This is living proof that people don't do dd. They did the circuit we had and it does work. But the business side doesn't work. The proof is in the UFOC that was disclosed in Jan. 2007. 22 stores closed. To date over 30 have closed. I know they are basing their decision on their area director. Which was our area director. He does have one of the few successful clubs. But he bought his club that was an existing club. Second generation of a zee has a better change of making it because he doesn't have to do the build out. I wish them well but if I could talk to them I would tell them the truth. We never included people on our hold list because they weren't paying members. The people opening this new club are very intelligent educated people. They just don't understand what killer due diligence is. I wish them well but if they are like the most who opened I feel sorry for them.

on February 17th, 2008

Joe VP should do the investigating firsthand for each concept

hire a competent franchise attorney and if he can't do the financial analysis himself hire an accountant as well.

Most due diligence is common sense and research. 

The Truth Shall Set You Free!

TIF

Posted by Truth in Franchising on February 2nd, 2008

Good advice

as long as the zee hires an attorney that knows how to do the REAL due diligence that is needed.

on February 2nd, 2008

DD isn't about trust

DD is about verification of risks. It doesn't matter how long it takes. What matters is whether it is competently done.

There's a lot wrong in the franchisng business. All of it can be fixed by franchisees. There will be almost no fraud when franchise investors avail themselves of competent due diligence assistance and decline to sign contracts that impose unreasonable risks in the circumstances.

There will be almost no relationship abuse when franchisees stop hiding out/foxholing and start standing up in cohesive groups to stop abuses.

So long as franchisees are too cheap/cowardly to establish associations that are managed by someone who knows what to do, and to stand up and take an aggressive part in abuse resistance, abuse will continue.

It is axiomatic that any bully will back down when he is pushed back. Bullies only bully cowards.

One could argue that sheep were created by The Almighty so that they could be fleeced. I've heard all the excuses. Excuses for inaction are enablers of suffering. I long ago lost sympathy for cowards. I don't care how badly you suffer if you won't take up the cudgels for your own protection and for that of your fellow franchisees. I've seen too much misery to worry about those who won't take care of themselves.

Even the miseries of the Quiznoose franchisees could have been avoided if the franchisees weren't a bunch of cowards. If you'd rather let beasts eat you alive and die than fight back and maybe establish a reasonable modus vivendi, I don't want to hear your whining.  --

Richard Solomon, FranchiseRemedies.com,  has over 45 years experience with franchise litigation and crisis management. He is a graduate of The Citadel and The University of Michigan Law School

Posted by RichardSolomon on February 17th, 2008

I wish them well but if I could talk to them I would tell them.

DoD - Who is holding you back from talking with them and expressing your opinion?

on February 17th, 2008

The only winners!

Seems to me the only winners in this franchise game is zors and lawyers. Zee's are the victims. Troll

on February 2nd, 2008

Have you researched a franchise from a zee perspective?

Your profile says you are a francise executive.  Have you ever been a franchisee, or done due diligence from a zee's point of view?

on February 2nd, 2008

Richard on DD

Richard, I think that is an excellent post.  I wish I had written, but then of course like Oscar Wilde, I probably will. 

Michael Webster PhD LLBFranchise News

Posted by michael webster on February 17th, 2008

DD is about getting to know it you can trust!

Time is the only way you can tell if you can trust. I am not whining. As far as fighting back- 3000 Quizno's lawsuits doesn't give you proof that many are indeed fighting back. Many of the zee's in our franchise is standing together and we have a plan of action. We are no longer afraid to write our stories and we are actively warning people of the consequences of not doing killer DD. Many of the people I know now know how horrible Quizno's and many other franchises are. No we are not sitting down and feeling sorry for ourselves. Of couse we do not trust our zor. Many stopped that trust even when we were in business. It is a shame because the product worked for me and many others. The truth is they don't want you to succeed. ( I'm talking about bad zors.) I am merely doing my part to warn people. There is strength in numbers. That is what we are doing.

We are not cowards!!!

 

on February 17th, 2008

DD is about getting to know it you can trust!

Time is the only way you can tell if you can trust. I am not whining. As far as fighting back- 3000 Quizno's lawsuits doesn't give you proof that many are indeed fighting back. Many of the zee's in our franchise is standing together and we have a plan of action. We are no longer afraid to write our stories and we are actively warning people of the consequences of not doing killer DD. Many of the people I know now know how horrible Quizno's and many other franchises are. No we are not sitting down and feeling sorry for ourselves. Of couse we do not trust our zor. Many stopped that trust even when we were in business. It is a shame because the product worked for me and many others. The truth is they don't want you to succeed. ( I'm talking about bad zors.) I am merely doing my part to warn people. There is strength in numbers. That is what we are doing.

We are not cowards!!!

 

on February 17th, 2008

DD Trust and BS

Richard Solomon, as always, tells the truth ---and if you were his client, you would not buy unviable franchises or unviable concepts and he would help you to find a franchise that deserves your trust. He even tells the truth that there are only a few franchise opportunities that deserve your trust and your investment.

But, he knows that new franchisees approach the "business of their own" and their partnership with the "brand" in great good faith and don't go into the relationship looking for problems or trouble. Whereas, the franchisor goes into the relationship with the view that he will OWN you and your assets in success and in failure.

This, of course, is the mistake of the ZEES, to enter the relationship in good faith, because the constructive fraud of the UFOC (FDD) offered together with the Franchise Agreement lulls the ZEE into a false sense of security because of the "appearance" that the government is engaging in some kind of oversight of the franchise industry ---but this isn't true. The government pushes franchisors and franchisees are just a resource of cheap venture capital and labor for the franchisors.

Richard chastises those ZEES who don't do killer due diligence with killer attorneys before the purchase and those that don't understand that they need effective and killer representation of ZEE associations from The BEGINNING. In otherwords, your good faith and trust might have gotten you into the relationship, but this "aint" going to save you from your ZOR if he decides to exploit and use you and throw you away.

Ugly reality and truth from Richard Solomon!

on February 17th, 2008

Your opinions on bullying

fly in the face of all academic research.

The control of the environment (milieu) is a very important element in influencing behavior. The Stanford Prison experiment converted normal college kids into near-psychotic guards and prisoners within days.

Richard, your sweeping generalities simply close off all rational dialogue. And that would be a rhetorical device common in cults called loading the language (thought-terminating cliches).

You have every right to your personal opinion but I am not aware of your qualifications as a research psychologist.

Les Stewart MBA

Posted by Les Stewart on February 17th, 2008

Too late they opened!!

They are in the honeymoon stage of "owning their own business!" Tried talking to a new franchise and he was hostile. I will wait 7 months or so. That is when the sh__ hits the fan.

on February 17th, 2008

What if the rules have changed?

I am all for comprehensive due diligence.  In fact, I have investigated a couple of opportunities of late for myself and opted to not move forward after I found a proverbial "smoking gun".

That said, what should a long-term franchisee do if he finds himself in a business he loves yet the rules have changed materially for him over the years:  New franchisor with new, aggressive management team armed with a new, onerous franchise agreement and plenty of litigious attorneys? I should add that over the course of many years, said long-term franchisee has added substantially to his franchise portfolio.  And that portfolio may now be highly leveraged, cross-defaulted and cross-collateralized, through these new pro-franchisor franchise agreements.

The rub is that no degree of due diligence at entry would have protected this long-term franchisee from where he finds himself today. In effect, the rules of engagement have changed for him along the way.  And please understand that said franchisee has invested his blood, sweat and tears, as well as millions of dollars of his capital over the years.  In order to grow his business he was forced to accept certain terms and conditions that effected his existing franchise agreements! 

One could argue that, yes, if he saw something he did not like, if he saw things were changing in a direction to which he objected, that he should have harvested immediately.  That is not always so easy if you and your extended family have forged a future together and are now entering second or perhaps the third generation of franchisee ownership. Regrettably, what was once unthinkable (harvesting) may be the most difficult decision a franchisee may face.

Mark A. Dubinsky

Posted by Markdubinsky on February 18th, 2008

Why would you ask this question?

Do you think that if I haven't been a franchisee that means I cannot know how to recommend how one should perform due diligence? 

The Truth Shall Set You Free!

TIF

Posted by Truth in Franchising on February 2nd, 2008

Common sense

The value of lawyers is much overrated.

A lot of this is common sense. Look at the classic Sona MedSpa offering circular. Look at Famous Uncle Al's Hot Dog selling $60K territories when a search of the SEC Edgar database showed they had only Nine Hundred dollars in the bank. Look at Obee's selling franchises in California when a search of California's state website will disclose that they never got registered in Cali. Look at the Unlimited MedSearch (similar to Obee's story) postings on BMM. Look at the thousands of people willing to pay a franchise fee for the privilege of learning how to pick up dog crap.

If you need a lawyer to protect you from your stupidity, you probably shouldn't be investing in a lemonade stand, let alone a franchise.

TiF is being uncharacteristically charitable. Having been a franchisee and an attorney, I can tell you that they don't give you a sack of common sense with your diploma. On the contrary, your attorney may well end up entangled in legal esoterica and neglect to exercise common sense.

Read the UFOC / FDD. Use common sense. If you are still considering the investment, then go talk to your advisors.

on February 2nd, 2008

Yes, I do think that....

A franchisor cannot possibly recommend how due diligence should be performed if they allow the kind of one sided agreement that most zors require.

Your attorneys will present the information in the UFOC in the form that serves your franchise.

You make your money on royalties, and the franchise agreement gives you the leverage to dictate to the franchisee.

You cannot fairly represent the other side of the equation, due to the massive conflict of interest inherent in the agreement you force zees to sign.

So, I do not believe you have any standing to talk about due diligence when your zor attorneys are writing self serving UFOC's, that require a franchise lawyer to translate into plain english, and do not always tell the whole story.

You may be an honest zor, with a good product, but you should not be touting yourself as a "truth teller" to franchisees when you make your living from royalties and franchise sales.

The conflict of interest issue here cannot be overcome.

on February 2nd, 2008

It is about risk!!!

If' zors were honest they would disclose exactly how many people went out of business. All they disclose is they didn't market enough, charged way too little for membership. Bottom line I have heard over and over from zors, it is always the zee's fault. They take no responsibility for all the lies up front. Even the marketing material was evident of lies. They used an icon in the industry to back up their lies. Only to find out the icon left the company two years ago. Why did he leave? My speculation is he was an honest man and honest people do not like deception as way to start a business. I am presenting facts and the 30 zee's and the one's who bought the zee who never opened are yelling foul. Rightfully so!!! Misrepresentation is illegal and they should be held accountable for this.

on February 17th, 2008

Very few things impress me less than

academic research. My knowledge of bullying comes from street experience, personally in a physical confrontation sense and in litigation. 

There is no rational dialogue that could justify cowardice.  --

Richard Solomon, FranchiseRemedies.com,  has over 45 years experience with franchise litigation and crisis management. He is a graduate of The Citadel and The University of Michigan Law School

Posted by RichardSolomon on February 17th, 2008

Sorry I am mistaken!

They open in May. That means they already signed everything and bought the equipment and are waiting for the permits. New owners just don't listen. I wish someone would have called us to warn us and give us information on what to do. The wife is like me, loves the workout. That is what sold me to buy. Not the sellsperson. The product itself. It was better than Curves. I was a member of Curves for three years. I learned the hard way that most people are not dedicated to regular workouts. I talked to a new owner and he was hostile. When I look back, if someone after our build out called me I would of believed them. The zor has an answer, (true or not) for everything. When people have to close, the last comment is I wish I never heard of 123 fit. My husband and I still say that. I'm hoping they will talk to owners, previous owners and people who signed an agreement and never open. The area director has a lovable personality but he is first a business person and always will be. I do not trust him.

 

 

on February 17th, 2008

Sweet Grapes turn Sour ----Too late to Warn

Too late to warn after someone has already bought in. They don't want this kind of news and prefer to believe it is just sour grapes from a loser.

This is why the Item 20 References are such a farce upon which new prospects are supposed to be able to conduct due diligence. The current ZEES aren't going to tell you anything really negative for fear of retaliation by the ZOR and the ex-ZEES who transfer have been silenced with "confidentiality" agreements and those who have terminated don't owe you or the ZOR anything and why would they talk to you about their failure. If they do talk to new ZEES, the new prospective ZEE will discount their expierience as being something wrong with them and not with the ZOR.

This warning on the Internet is the only really effective way to warn -----BEFORE anything is signed and BEFORE the great adventure begins.

on February 17th, 2008

Relationship Due Diligence

Mark writes:  "The rub is that no degree of due diligence at entry would have protected this long-term franchisee from where he finds himself today. In effect, the rules of engagement have changed for him along the way.  And please understand that said franchisee has invested his blood, sweat and tears, as well as millions of dollars of his capital over the years.  In order to grow his business he was forced to accept certain terms and conditions that effected his existing franchise agreements!"

Couldn't agree more with the sentiment, especially the part about cross defaults!

For the multi-unit holder, or someone who aspires to that status, the cross default is the kiss of death.

Never accept one. 

Michael Webster PhD LLBFranchise News

Posted by michael webster on February 18th, 2008

Paul you caught me on a good day!

Paul states - "TiF is being uncharacteristically charitable. Having been a franchisee and an attorney, I can tell you that they don't give you a sack of common sense with your diploma. On the contrary, your attorney may well end up entangled in legal esoterica and neglect to exercise common sense.

Now about that legal erotica; will have none that sort of thing at BMM. 

The Truth Shall Set You Free!

TIF

Posted by Truth in Franchising on February 2nd, 2008

Amen 20year zee!!!

If there was an audience of zee's out there you would get a standing ovation.

on February 2nd, 2008

Protect yourself from our stupidity!!

And you never made a mistake in your life. I'm glad to read something from a perfect person. Besides the comment about a lemonade stand. I probably would of made more money opening a lemonade stand than a zee. My husband made 3 or 4 dollars at 6 years old running a lemonade stand. Don't knock lemonade stands- knock bad zee's.

on February 2nd, 2008

Psst...wanna hear the dirt?

If you want to hear what to watch out for in a UFOC/FA, go to the IFA Legal Symposium. It is an open forum (though a bit pricey) and you can hear all of the methods by which franchisors skew the contract in their favor.

In a like vein: One of the most astute observers of the franchisee lobbyist failures I ever heard was a famous zor-side attorney.

It is like any business presentation or court litigation: you should put yourself in the other side's shoes. A lot of zor-side professionals are well aware of what prospects will fall for and what mistakes prospects make. So I would not be so quick to dismiss due dilly thoughts just because they came from the zor-side.

As to UFOC presentation: there is not a lot of wiggle room as to this. I would agree that the UFOC / FDD can be abused, but the presentation itself is in a prescribed format and complaints as to that format would be properly directed to the FTC (which would ignore you, but that's another story).

on February 2nd, 2008

Hogwash 20yearzee...

Your so full of it your eyes are brown! 

Of course I can opine on how to perform due dlilgence especially from the other side of the equation what better vantage point is there.  

And its not most franchisors that have one sided agreements it's all franchisors. Only some agreements are more equitable than others.

About the truth - We proudly make money from fees and royalties. We also determine how franchisees operate by setting the standards and training to those standards.

The Truth Shall Set You Free!

TIF

P.S. No amount of prophylactic due diligence will change franchise agreement drafting that favors franchisors.

Posted by Truth in Franchising on February 2nd, 2008

Protect yourself from our stupidity!!

I'm glad you walk on water and never made a mistake in your life. Don't knock lemonade stands my husband made 5 or 6 dollars running a lemonade stand at 6 years old. More than we made running a zee. Knock bad Zors. I agree with your last statement. There is safety with a abundance of counselors. Most of all future zee's should take a year before signing. Proper due diligence should involve not being in a hurry. Take time to watch the zee you want to buy. The problem is many times zors rush you. We felt rushed by the Zor. At that point we should of stopped and told them we wouldn't sign. Remember it is your money they are playing with. And it your money they are after. Stop and smell the roses. (For the roses may smell like a rat!) You could very well save yourself from bankruptcy. A good reason to slow down.

on February 2nd, 2008

My experience comes from

being a franchisee so we may differ as to the appropriateness of calling any group of people "cowards".

A professional with a loathing for knowledge? 

Les Stewart MBA

Posted by Les Stewart on February 17th, 2008

Exactly what do you want zee's to do?

I believe we are doing all we can do in our situation. I try to call the zee's in the same situation as us and encourage them that there is always a way out. People have contacts with the press. I understand many laws are changed when the press get these victim stories. You know the press loves these type of stories. Have you seen the "Is That All There Is?" video. Awesome video. Says a lot in 4 minutes. Richard we can't go beat our area directors up or go have yelling matches with them. They have forgotten about us and now they are saying, "Next!" Besides most of the people I am in contact with are women. When a women gets mad look out. We are all good people but feel lied to and robbed. They have hurt our families. And boy look out for mama bear. We are angry!!!

on February 17th, 2008

Overrated Attorneys

Paul writes: " The value of lawyers is much overrated."

I tend to agree with this, but for a different reason.  

Attorneys cannot vet the business plan: and only if they are very good can they vet the compliance between the marketing materials and the UFOC.  Even at that, few attorneys have the skill to diagnosis and treat cognitive dissonance.  

Further, this legal advice is of no use in monitoring the relationship -which is what all franchisees really need. 

There is very little point in going to an attorney if you haven't read the UFOC and have questions about what it is saying, what you remedies might be.

A good franchise litigation attorney should be consulted, especially by area developers, and other multi-unit purchasers, to devise a litigation plan.

At a minimum, the litigation plan should track the possible misrepresentations made but hidden in the UFOC during the relevant limitation period.  

Think of it as your own ongoing quality control check on the franchisor.

Trust and continually verify. 

Michael Webster PhD LLBFranchise News

Posted by michael webster on February 3rd, 2008

Solomon Family Reunion

TiF wrote: P.S. No amount of prophylactic due diligence will change franchise agreement drafting.

TiF is Solomon's long-lost twin !!

on February 2nd, 2008

Actually, my eyes are blue

and they can clearly see that you have a conflict of interest of gigantic proportion.

You will never understand the point of view of a franchisee when you make money from a one sided agreement.

If you wish to opine from the zor point of view, I am interested in your opinion - but at least I know where your loyalty lies.

 

on February 2nd, 2008

Actually, my eyes are blue, and

I can see that your conflict of interest prevents you from opining from a zee point of view.

I suggest you limit your comments to the point of view of a zor since you have never been a zee, but this is a free forum, and I am sure you will continue to do as you wish.

I will try not to represent myself as a franchisor, since that would not be "truthful".

"Untruths can keep you incarcerated"

on February 2nd, 2008

The premeditation to skew and screw by ZOR attorneys

When you don't own the physical assets of your franchised network, you have to own the franchisees absolutely and the FTC helps the franchisors to own the franchisees 100% in exploitive long-term contracts of adhesion that are protected under law.

The franchisor OWNS only PROMISES under contracts on paper and it is these paper portfolios that are bought and sold in the financial market places and that are protected in the courts.

Face it! The franchisee is a source of cheap labor and capital on which the franchisor can profit whether or not the franchisee is operating at a profit, at a loss, or at break even. Because this is true, franchisors don't have to be fair or reasonable until their profits are impacted ----and by that time, it is generally too late for both the franchisor and the franchisee.

on February 2nd, 2008

Mistake not the issue

It is not a question of making a mistake. The issue is whether the mistake could have been avoided by means of utilizing the existing resources. Only if the answer is in the negative would we then proceed to issues of whether it is desirable to restrict business activity (such as by relationship legislation or changes to the existing disclosure regime).

I am well aware of a degree of disconnect between contract jurisprudence and human behavior. I have written about that (in favor of relationship legislation), and others such as Webster, Fuwa, and Solomon have engaged in discussion on this board about the topic.

And I have nothing against anyone who wants to help me pay my electric bill. But I again suggest to you that more than half of the franchise "opportunities" out there can be discarded with a cursory review and relying on a third-party (atty, CPA, or whatever) to do the heavy lifting is both lazy and unwise.

on February 2nd, 2008

If you still want top wallow in excuses and suffer injustices,

that's OK with me. I've already said what I have to say.

If you don't understand what I said, there's no sense in my saying anything more to you.

As for the poor man who killed himself due to the stress in his Quiznoose situation, the blame isn't any more on Quiznoose than it is on his fellow franchisees who stood by and would not join together and act to help him. --

Richard Solomon, FranchiseRemedies.com,  has over 45 years experience with franchise litigation and crisis management. He is a graduate of The Citadel and The University of Michigan Law School

Posted by RichardSolomon on February 17th, 2008

Academic research doesn't always yield

knowledge.

People who live in the fruits of academe fraquently have nothing useful to contribute to any real situations that require competent remediation.

 You and I have nothing in common, and should probably disengage at this point. --

Richard Solomon, FranchiseRemedies.com,  has over 45 years experience with franchise litigation and crisis management. He is a graduate of The Citadel and The University of Michigan Law School

Posted by RichardSolomon on February 17th, 2008

You Can't Stop Your Due Diligence

If you ever think you've done enough due diligence you're probably headed for a major fall. It's a process that should be ongoing up until the time you sign the contract - and continuing your due diligence afterwards can limit your losses should problems become evident. It's better to take a small loss upfront rather than try to "make it work" and watch your hard earned savings disappear.

As someone who thought all the i's were dotted and the t's were crossed I received a huge surprise after buying a Quiznos franchise. In hindsight I wasn't nearly as thorough as I thought I was; and definitely not as thorough as I would be today. The decision to buy a Quiznos franchise is one I've regretted everyday since I signed the contract.

on February 2nd, 2008

No, he can't be, because

Solomon would never agree to be related to a franchisor!

on February 2nd, 2008

And I thought we were beginning to get along so well...

I am even going to agree with you! Yes, I will continue to do as I see prudent and share my opinion in the same manner I have been.

Oh and I don't opine from a franchisee POV I do it from a global franchising POV.

The Truth Shall Set You Free!

TIF

Posted by Truth in Franchising on February 2nd, 2008

Meatloaf said

..that 2 out of 3 ain't bad.

On paragraph 3, yes: and surprisingly there are a lot of decent f'zors and f'zor counsel who agree with you about the need to be reasonable before the system reaches the tipping point... a lesson for Quiznos and UPS!

On paragraph 2: partially true. The zor owns the IP, and that is a major weapon in the zor legal arsenal.

On paragraph 1: No, you don't need to enserf your zees. And the FTC has nothing to do with contracts (adhesory or otherwise). The FTC merely states that disclosure must be in a prescibed form. Congress has chosen not to take action, and while I disagree with Congress, one can hardly blame the FTC for the fact that the judiciary will enforce the written language of a contract. 

on February 2nd, 2008

Doesn't the Zor have any due diligence for being honest ?

Misrepresentation, non-discloser, exaggerating- Do the Zors have a responsibility to tell the Zees the truth about the current status of the coroporation? Is it only the Zee's responsibility to do their due diligence? I have to admit in our case the salesperson and corporation were smooth and not honest. Troll

on February 2nd, 2008

Global franchising?

C'mon, now. 

You comment from a Global ZOR point of view, and nothing more.

Point me to a post where you upheld the rights of the zee community, will ya?

on February 2nd, 2008

The Franchisor must be FTC and State compliant...

The rules for disclosure are very clear and a franchisor cannot provide additional discosure outside of the UFOC/FDD. 

If you have a claim against your franchisor you should seek the help of a qualified franchise attorney. 

The Truth Shall Set You Free!

TIF

Posted by Truth in Franchising on February 2nd, 2008

I am here to promote the best in franchising for zees and zors

You however can carry on your attacks against franchisors all you want.  

The Truth Shall Set You Free!

TIF

Posted by Truth in Franchising on February 2nd, 2008

The current status of the UFOC?

So if someone buys a franchise and the UFOC states currently only 2 stores closed. (The truth over 20 closed before you sign.) They have no responsibility to disclose the current status of the company? Would knowing 20 closed instead of 2 affect your decision to sign or not to sign? Absolutely! Troll

on February 2nd, 2008

The current status of the UFOC?

So if someone buys a franchise and the UFOC states currently only 2 stores closed. (The truth over 20 closed before you sign.) They have no responsibility to disclose the current status of the company? Would knowing 20 closed instead of 2 affect your decision to sign or not to sign? Absolutely! Troll

on February 2nd, 2008

I really have no beef with franchisors in general, but

I do think that a franchisor might have a tough time representing that it understands the plight of franchisees.

I do respect your right to continue to opine, and I will continue to point out your conflict of interest.

It will make for good debate.

 

on February 2nd, 2008