Small Business Administration

The SBA, franchise solution or part of the problem? Members and guests discuss what needs to change to make the SBA fairer to franchising -- or maybe the answer is to eliminate it altogether?

FuwaFuwaUsagi--Where do ZORS get their financing? SBA?

Since the ZORS qualify as "small business People" do they get their financing from the SBA based on their ability to capiture cheap labor and capital from franchisees ----based on their ability under disclosure laws to not disclose the risk of the investment to the first owner buyers of the franchise?

on February 16th, 2008

SbA in business of Guaranteeing Loans with High Failure Rates

It is obvious that the SBA is in the business of guaranteeing loans on franchises with high failure rates that are not known to the SBA or FranData, the SBA's agent, who administers the SBA Franchise Registry for the SBA.

What steps has the SBA taken to correct the mistaken impression that the FranData "Snapshots" give to prospective franchnise investors who purchase "Snapshots" from FranData in the process of their due diligence? I'm sure that general attorneys also purchase these Snapshots from FranData, as well. when advising their clients. Experienced franchise attorneys know better, we assume!

While these "Snapshots" that are for sale may not endanger the SBA in any manner because they maintain their own default statistics on the loans they guarantee, they do endanger franchisee investors who are not made aware of the real failure rate of the franchise that can and has been obscured in the State UFOC's.

Isn't this "constructive" fraud committed against franchise consumers? Do the SBA and the FTC have an obligation under the law to examine their practices to determine if these practices amount to "constructive" fraud against consumers of franchises?

on November 1st, 2007

Thanks Original Soupman for the Warning

Thanks for getting out here on Blue Mau Mau and telling us this story.

Do you realize that the UFOC that is supposed to be a document that enables you to "assess the risk of the investment and compare it with other investments" is really just a red herring of hundreds of pages of information that obscures the actual and franchisor- KNOWN statistical risk of the investment?

While the franchise agreement you signed and the UFOC do warn that there is risk and no guarantee of success, and that anything that was said to you outside of the contract doesn't count, this is all an artifice to prevent ZEES from learning how many businesses actually succeed and at what cost do they finally succeed. The franchisors almost protect themselves in the franchise agreements for their faulty estimates for start-up and breakeven and those ZEES who dig the hole deeper to try to get to breakeven to prevent losing their entire investments eventually can't dig for funds any more. All this time, the franchisor is earning profits off of all of the struggle you are engaged in to prove his "unproven concept" in the marketplace.

Government supports franchising and weak and ineffective disclosure because franchisees are logs on the fire of development in the years they remazin standing and provide jobs and tax revenue and profits for the franchisors. The franchisees are silenced in failure.

Talk to your elected representatives at State and Federal level. The UFOC is nothing more than a license to steal for those who will steal the life savings of innocent Americans who believe in their government and The American Dream ---that is so often the American nightmare.

This is an American Scandal but the dirty little secrets of franchising are hidden from the Americasn Public and enabled by an ugly status quo and a FTC who is in bed with the IFA.

Get mad as hell and try to spread the word.

Check and see if "Soupman" is still on the SBA Franchise Registry for a "quickie" loan from government and think about what this means.

on September 3rd, 2007

Franchise Loan Activity

The writing is on the wall! The SBA Patriot Express Loan Initiative will be pushed to the bankers as a new source of income and the franchisors will be out in the marketplace pushing franchise loans as a means of relieving the sub-prime mortgage black swan that is still wading in the financial waters of the economy.

What are these advantages that franchisees have over traditional small businesses? Where is the proof of this statement?

on December 28th, 2007

Took a Risk and Lost ---Quiznos

Yes! How disgusting! Quiznos investors took an unknown risk and lost.

They were impressed with the visibility of Quiznos and didn't understand that the UFOC's together with the Contracts are designed to obscure the actual statistical risk of the investment in Quiznos. It is one thing to advise an investor that there is risk and no guarantee of success in the investment in the UFOC and the Contract and quite another thing to obscure the actual franchisor-known statistics as to the success and failure rate of first-generatikon franchisees.

Franchisees wouldn't have believed that government permits franchisors to sell franchises who have a very high risk of failure of first-generation franchisees and that these failures are obscured in the UFOC. Franchisees wou;dn't believe that the promulgation of the law surrounding franchising protects this ugly status quo.

The SBA Franchise Registry is proof of the government's position in that there are many franchises with very high failure rates on the Registry that are eligible for guaranteed SBA Loans. Franchise startups and capital are often backed by home-equity loans and you can know that the failure of first-generation franchisees contributes to the crisis in the mortgage market when franchisees lose their investments and are thrown into bankruptcy. This failure rate of home-equity-franchise loans does not show up on the SBA Loan Default List, of course, so the default rate of SBA loans is not a true picture of the failure rate of the franchise that is being sold.

Fran Data, who manages the SBA Registry for the government under contract and who also sells Risk Profiles to the public for profit may have been putting out misleading risk profiles to the public if they didn't carefully examine each and every transfer that is listed in the franchisor's UFOC. Fran Data acknowledges that the default rate on the SBA loans is material to the risk of investment in the franchise.

It would seem that the banks would want to know the actual failure rate of the first-generation franchisees who borrow against their hnomes and their 401's and their 403's because, of course, the bottom could fall out of the housing market and house re-sale prices could fall drastically.

This is a national disgrace. Greed and deception are not always good and there is a price to be paid for government policies that depend upon the capture of cheap labor and cheap venture capital from uninformed citizens who don't understand that the UFOC's are just a licence to operate in the state, and a license to steal for those predator franchisors who will steal to sustain THEIR visibility and profits.

on September 4th, 2007

Contract Law Protects the Sale of Duds to the Public

FA terms of the contract together with a government UFOC protect franchisors who sell Duds to the public and the SBA guarantees loans on these Duds.

It is not surprising therefore that the courts protect the contract terms that protect those who are selling the duds. The Courts are not concerned as to whether or not the franchise is a dud and only concerned that contract law is upheld.

This process apparently supports the regulatory policy that is set at federal level by the Executive in the interests of stimulating the economy though investment in small business.

on November 6th, 2007

High Finance and Franchnising

Allied Capital has a portfolio of franchises representing tens of thousands of franchisees ---who are bound by long-term unbargained and unconscionable self-serving unilateral contracts that are honored by the courts.

It appears that Allied Capital doesn't want to deal with the SBA anymore through BLX because BLX were caught in illegal loan activity. Is the IFA, through its FDDI program continuing its relationship with BLX to promote loans for franchises for FDDI participants.

How is it that the view from the bottom, from the perspective of the franchisee, is so often dismal, while the view from the top, looking down, is that profits will abound for the investors who invest in the franchisors who hold their franchisees hostage under these long term contracts of adhesion for ten years, or more.

Are these long-term contracts proof of malice aforethought. If we work with the Bell Curve and CPA pronouncements that four out of five small businesses fail within the first five years, independent or franchised, why aren't franchise agreements and leases negotiated for five- year terms with fair options to renew for both the franchisee and the franchisor?

Is this another instance of government regulation that feeds the top feeders who grow fat on the little fish that swim in the bottom of the pond?

on November 8th, 2007

SBA Misleading Troops to Bad Investments-Patriot Express Pilot

With the introduction of the Patriot Express Pilot Loan program for Vets in cooperation with VET-Fran-VA and the SBA Registry and the SBA Loan Default List, the SBA is in the position of harming Veterans, National Guard, and Reserve Troops, their spouses, and other targets of franchisors.
The real and true risk of the franchised business opportunities on the SBA Registry will be hidden from view because the real failure rate of the franchised business opportunities for first-generation franchisees(who provide the capital and labor to build the brand units) will be hidden from view in the Item 20 columns of the UFOC's.
This is disgraceful and unworthy of our graat country and our promise of liberty and justice for all.

on July 2nd, 2007

Sona MedSpa, The UPS Store, CSC, The CB are all on SBA

Sona MedSpa, The UPS Store, CSC, The CB, Quiznos and many other franchisors with great failure rates of franchisees are on the SBA Franchise Registry that is managed by FranData.

FranData indicates that they read only the Contract and not the UFOC's and this, apparently, covers them with their "Snapshots" that are sold to the public because they don't even look at the UFOC's. But, how do they pick up the terminations and the total units, etc. if they don't look at Item 20 of the UFOC's?

This doesn't make sense. Is this NEW Unit Performance Data tool of FranData a means of cover for FranData and the SBA who are making loans on franchises with very high failure rates of first owners of their franchises?

on November 17th, 2007

Forbes: l0 Reasons ----Unfair Termination

The last of the Ten Good Reasons Not to Buy a Franchise touches on the possibility of the franchisee losing the business due to non-payment of royalties.

Is it a contradiction that those franchisees who don't break even and who are operating at a loss and struggling to break even and to service their debt are the most vulnerable to unfair termination by the franchisor ---and to predatory takeovers of the business by third parties? Those failing franchisees who complain to Corporate are subjected to audits and painful cures for infractions of the agreement that are out of proportion to the infractions, and while this may be unfair, it is legal under the franchisor's self-serving contract. Franchisors premeditate the use the terms of the binding unilateral agreement to acquire the assets of their failing franchisees cheaply for third party second-generation franchisees

The franchisors have IMMEDIATE access to the courts and to injunctions for non-payment of royalties while the franchisees are kept from the courts by the terms of the contract and are forced into mediation if the franchisor breaches the contract.

We cannot know how many franchisees continue to pay their royalties and work for nothing for years until they finally break even or fail. In failure, always, the franchisor can provide a third party to acquire the business in a fire sale or to cheaply buy the free title to the tangible assets from the bank who holds the "defaulted" loan. The banks are always willing to sell the tangible assets cheaply if there is personal collateral or an SBA guarantee backing the loan upon which they can collect the balance from the debtor.

We cannot know how many failed franchisees continue to pay on debt that continues to stand up units in the franchisor's network (under new ownership that continues to provide royalties for the franchisor) because they are honorable and want to save themselves from bankruptcy.

The absolute power of franchisors in the status quo of franchising is corrupting. It produces predators who indulge in abusive management policies to maximize the franchisor's profits at the expense of first-generation franchisees whose capital and labor is the primary resource for the franchisor, in success or in failure. It takes a new franchisee a few years to work up to failure or success and in those years the franchisee is feeding the profits of the franchisor with royalties from the gross sales of the business.

Quiznos, The UPS Store, CS Creamery, and many other franchises who are eligible for SBA guaranteed loans are good examples of abuse of power possible under the status of franchising in the law today. They are good examples of the subsidy that government provides to franchisors.

on October 20th, 2007


Same old crap!

on December 17th, 2007

SBA Guarantees Loans and Franchisors and Banks Always Win

The SBA guarantees Loans and the Franchisors and the Banks always win. It is only the franchisee who negotiates the loan who takes the risk and loses everything in failure.
Because this is true, the failure rate of first-generation franchisees in a franchise network, that reflects the failure rate of the proven business plan, is a material fact that should be disclosed to permit the buyer of the franchisor to assess the true and real risk of the investment.

Your dishonesty is not appreciated. Red Herring Smells and Truth is hard to overcome by deceit and guile.

Item 20 is obviously a sham that enables scams.

on July 4th, 2007

Yes contact your elected officials and demand restraint of trade

and government interference in all franchise business transactions. Tell them that before an SBA loan of any kind is made it should past muster by a local SBA Franchise Loan Approval Board that will determine the risk factor of the proposed franchise venture. This local SBA Franchise Loan Approval Board will use the Z-Rube Franchise Measurement Scale which is a "secret" formula based on special calculus developed by a the famous Z-Rube. Z-Rube is a former failed UPS Store franchisee. Z-Rube developed this measurement scale with the help of Harvard, MIT, Stanford, Yale and Rube City Community College.

These local SBA Franchise Loan Approval Boards will be comprised of failed franchisees from across the land. The board members will be paid out of fund extorted from franchisors and the board member rate of pay in 2007 is $175K per year with a maximum per anum increase of 12% (minimum increase is 10%).

And of course the famous Z-Rube would run this division of the SBA!

on July 4th, 2007

Calculated Sacrifice of Franchisees to Free Trade Principles?

Poster wants to use "restraint of trade" and "regulation restraint" as excuse for failure to disclose the true and real risk of a franchised business opportunity to the buyer of the franchise.

These posters who are so against any effective regulation and who would sacrifice franchisees to bad business investments in the interests of their profits and the "economy" have no problem with the government, the SBA, making them rich with tax-payer money that stands behind the guarantees for the banks and the lenders -- and the franchisors have no problem with government initiatives like THE PATRIOT EXPRESS LOAN that will allow them to capture the capital of the franchisees who, in both success and failure, will feed the franchisors and the economy.

It doesn't matter to them that the targeted group who will be eligible for Patriot Express Loans are human beings who may have already given an arm, or a leg, or an eye to protect free markets, democracy and capitalism in the world. They seem to be indicating that. if government doesn't continue to subsidize the franchisors by allowing them to obscure the actual and real risk of the investment, this will result in "restraint of trade" and be bad for the economy and bad for the profits of the franchisors and the banks, etc...

Is franchising really that risky? Is the real rate of failure so high that you would be willing to sacrifice veterans to prevent the failure rate of the franchises from being disclosed under law? You would take the other leg and the arm from this targeted group to protect the myth of "a business of your own" and to provide the "venture" capital to keep the fires of development going.

Is this what you are saying?

on July 4th, 2007

Why won't SBA finance the ZOR Corporation?

Is this because ZORS are considered to be part of pyramid sales plans ----that are ineligible for SBA loans?

on February 16th, 2008


We have to hope that the FranData Snapshots were not premeditated as "cover" for attorneys who may provide them to their clients to protect themselves when things go bad and the franchisee fails.

It is obvious, of course, since the Snapshots completely ignore transfers and present them only in the total units standing in the system, that the Snapshots would be a cheap way of providing immunity for attorneys who don't do killer due diligence on the Item 20 columns of the UFOC's.

on November 1st, 2007

Maybe one day the Item 20 Ranter will have something to offer

The Item 20 Ranter makes no sense.

What nefarious element do subprime, mortgages, Patriot Express and bank loans to franchise business have in common?

The Item 20 Ranter is anti-franchise, anti-capitalist and despises commercial enterprise where the owners make a profit.

The Truth Shall Set You Free!


Posted by Truth in Franchising on December 28th, 2007


Nothing you've said made any sense.  "Regulatory policy that is set at the federal level by the Executive?"

Whatever it is you are smoking, pass it this way.

Posted by Bubba Sparky on November 6th, 2007

SBA ---Bag Money for the Banks

After Katrina, one might think that the SBA is just bag money for the banks!

on July 2nd, 2007

Item 20 Ranter never ceases to amaze

Are you so self-deluded to believe your conspiracy theories?  Do you think before you write your absurd rants?

The Truth Shall Set You Free!


Posted by Truth in Franchising on November 17th, 2007

SBA Patriot Express Pilot Loan Program ---VETS BEWARE

The summary indicates: To support the entrepreneurial section of the National Military community that are being significantly affected by what is expected to be a protracted war on terro.........

This would be a wonderful gift from government if the true and real risks of the business opportunities offered on the SBA Registry were disclosed to the veterans and their spouses under the law. The SBA Default Rate on Franchise Loans does not present a true picture of the actual failure rate of the franchised business plans because the real failure rate is hidden in the transfer columns of Item 20 of the UFOC's.

While the guarantee on the loans is being raised and interest rates are lowered, these loans will still require collateral and veterans and their families will be put at risk if they invest their houses and their savings into unviable franchise opportunities and are forced to surrender the collateral to the banks.

on July 2nd, 2007

Tell me Item 20 Ranter...

Are you suggesing that the government decide what provisions are in franchise agreements?

Are you suggesting that the government take away the rights of people to freely associate contractually?

Are you saying that the government and the courts should re-state/reform existing contracts between franchisees and franchisors?

When will you cease to be a coward and list five franchise concepts that you believe are worth consideration by prospective franchisees?

The Truth Shall Set You Free!


on October 20th, 2007

Targeting underperformers

Guest writes: Is it a contradiction that those franchisees who don't break even and who are operating at a loss and struggling to break even and to service their debt are the most vulnerable to unfair termination by the franchisor ---and to predatory takeovers of the business by third parties?

Not necessarily. There are often good reasons why some locations succeed and others fail. Sometimes, those reasons are within the control of the human being (employee or franchisee) who manages the location. As such, if I were a franchisor it would be doing a service to the struggling franchisee to go in and assess why they are struggling. If you watch the Gordon Ramsay show "Kitchen Nightmares" you can see that bad management can result in failure, and that bad managers can become good managers with the proper guidance.

I don't question the existence of punitive audits, nor the existence of failure for reasons beyond the control of the franchisee. But it is no contradiction to consider a causal relationship between poor sales/profitability and poor management.

on October 22nd, 2007

Not quite a yawn, though I

Not quite a yawn, though I didn't actually bother to go thru the post till you responded.

There is an interesting quote: Obviously, under FTC Regulatory Policy and SBA policy, the "small businesses" they are talking about must be the franchisors...

Now, that of course is exactly why the Registry exists: to declare that the loans are actually being made to small businesses and not multi-billion dollar corporations. There is a legitimate line of inquiry as to whether this is really true, and whether the SBA should be involved in funding franchise purchases.

I do agree that the Guest post doesn't make that point very well, but if you sift thru the bombast, there are some valid points buried in there. 

on December 17th, 2007

Z-Rube and you think we appreciate your dishonesty?

Get over yourself! You failed, you made poor choices in The UPS Store franchise and you need serious professional help to cure you of your incessant whining and complaining.

on July 4th, 2007

I agree with you for the most part...

Just to clarify the SBA does not make loans it guarantees loans made by banks to borrowers under the various SBA loan programs. And if loans go bad the 3% fee paid by borrowers into the SBA pool pays the lender under the guarantee (the borrower also personally guarantees the loan).

on July 4th, 2007


This kind of makes it bullet proof for the government and the banks, doesn't it. Absolutely, no party involved can lose except the franchisee ---who isn't provided with the material fact of the failure rate of first-generations franchisees by the UFOC----and who will probably not pay $3,000 to $5,000 for due diligence from an expert because resources will be scare and the appearance of government endorsement is almost overwhelming.

Let's hope this new initiative isn't just a knee jerk reaction to what government is going to do with the returning troops after the end of the war that was sold by the lobbyists for the franchisors and the banks as a solution to the problem of employment and the lack of jobs. Most of the jobs provided by retail business opportunities that are franchised are PT jobs that pay the lowest possible hourly wates and the franchise owners often work for nothing or for very little.

on July 4th, 2007

Risk of investment

I read these posts and am amazed by the ignorance and childishness of most that write.

Has it dawned on any of you that the UFOC contains far, far more information about the potential risks of a franchise than anything you'd get if you went into business on your own!

Of course, one of the greatest benefits of franchising to this weak-kneed, whining group of bottom dwellers (I'm sure most of the posts here are made by the bottom performers of whatever system they belong to) is that when it's all over and you've lost everything, you can blame the franchisor, the SBA, and any other person or government agency you can find.

And, even when you lose in Arbitration (recent CB decision), you can continue to rant and rave that you've been cheated. That's right, the Arbitrator in the CB case risked her entire career, reputation, and livelihood ($250 per hour makes for nice bling!) because she has the same accountant as the franchisor and doesn’t want to offend him (accountants being as hard to find as they are!).

As a franchisee, I am embarrassed by the sheer lack of understanding of basic business precepts and appreciation for what franchisors bring to the table demonstrated in this forum. While not expected, it would be nice to read some balance when it comes to important issues. Otherwise, you get nothing more than a giant bitch fest!

To sum up most of the posts on this site -- franchisor bad!, franchisee abused!, franchisees must be protected from his/her own stupidity!

Business is risk! If you want a certain thing put whatever menial amounts of money you have into government insured CDs.

Let the whining continue! :)

on July 4th, 2007

Does TIF use FranData Research and Snapshots

In your business, TIF, do you use FranData Research and/or Snapshots in your consultations with your clients?

on November 1st, 2007

what do you offer again?

your purpose here escapes wouldn't be that you have an agenda here now, would it? of course not. but hey keep on calling the kettle black TIFpot.

care to recommend any franchises today? here's that list again:

1) McDonalds

how are the posts coming on demonstrating franchisee culpability and incompetence? we're all eager to hear your thoughts...

sleep tight.

on December 28th, 2007

Regulatory policy

"Regulatory policy that is implemented at the federal level by the Executive" may be a better choice of words.

on November 6th, 2007

Regulatory implementation of statute

Bubba, I think this is a "Chevron question" and we have an administrative law expert/constitutional scholar who wandered over here by accident.

Either that, or the Guest is opining on the prospects for a change at the FTC after the next election. But given that the policy of the FTC has remained the same thru Democrat and Republican administrations, I don't see much chance of that changing.

Or maybe Guest just fell asleep in 8th grade social studies and I am taking his posting too seriously.

on November 12th, 2007

"Moved" to Where?

My last post is indicated as being moved to "here" in the above posting but it appears to have been moved completly off of the Blue Mau Mau Site

Is this censorship in disguise by the Community Umpire who didn't like my last Post? I also can't find the Post from TIF that asmed me what I wanted the government to do about franchise disclosure?

on October 20th, 2007

Government should regulate to protect ----FTC-SBA-IFA REMISS

It is not just the Item 20 Poster but attorneys like Mr. Robert Purvin and Mr. Andy Selden who recognize the astonishing failure of the FTC to regulate franchising in such as way as to mandate that there be AT LEAST some material information provided on which prospective franchisees can assess the risk and the rewards of the investment in the franchise.

The purpose of all government regulation is said to be to protect the public but in the regulation of franchising, that portion of the public who invests in franchising, the franchisee, is being misled by the federal government through the process of the FTC Rule that governs the state UFOC's. The UFOC's are a license to steal for those predators who CAN and DO steal with immunity under federal and state law.

It is one thing to prepare non-negotiable contracts and to require UFOC's that indicate that there is 100% risk to the franchisee ---and another matter for the government and the IFA to cooperate to obsucre the known statistical risk of the investment in the franchise.

It would be better if the federal government didn't regulate at all and we, instead, had stronger state laws concerning disclosure of material information concerning performance and risk, as well as strong anti-fraud laws.

At least the United Kingdom learned and is learning from the mistakes of the United States and will not regulate franchising to lure their citizens into a false sense of security about the franchising industry.

It is you TIF who sells franchises who apparently can't get out here and recommend five good franchisees that are excellent investments for first-generation franchisees.

on October 20th, 2007

Paul is it your job to rehabilitate the Item 20 Ranter rants?

He makes little to no sense and for your to distill a facsimile of a point that the Item 20 Ranter likely did not know he made is almost comical. 

The Truth Shall Set You Free!


Posted by Truth in Franchising on December 17th, 2007


1) The franshisee is borrowing the money they have contractual and moral obligation to pay it back.

2) It is the franchise buyer's responsiblity to make good choices and perform due diligence.

3) Franchise buyers are reponsible for their desicions and they own the success or failure.

4) The government is not your mommy or daddy.

5) Stop whining about your failures.

on July 4th, 2007

Z-rube you just don't get it

1) The franshisee is borrowing the money they have contractual and moral obligation to pay it back.

2) It is the franchise buyer's responsiblity to make good choices and perform due diligence.

3) Franchise buyers are reponsible for their desicions and they own the success or failure.

4) The government is not your mommy or daddy.

5) Stop whining about your failures.

on July 4th, 2007


The failure rate is always in Item 20 if you know how to read it. Not putting a flag on the specific failures isn't a concealment issue.

The mistake is confusing literacy with knowing how to read. 


Posted by RichardSolomon on July 4th, 2007

God Bless You!

Great points! However you are disqualified to on Z-Rube's SBA Franchise Loan Approval Board.

on July 4th, 2007

Reading Item 20 of the UFOC

Of course, you killer due diligence attorneys know from the moment you look at Item 20 that those transfers, if many, are not good. You can smell the scams and will not even have to read the rest of the UFOC of the scammer.

But, of course, Richard, the government knows that prospective franchisees who are naive and inexperienced and unsophisticated in business matters won't know what to think when they look at the transfer columns. Many of them will be impressed with the visibility of the franchisor and his well-known brand name and will neglect to hire killer due-diligence experts like you.

If they understand the charts at all, they will probably only be interested in how many total units there are and how many lucky people bought in the period that was being reported in the UFOC.

I know you are honest enough that you will not defend the references in Item 20 that the government appears to believe is a disclosure that permits prospective buyers to perform due diligence.

If the government is inadvertently assisting in the concealment of a material fact as related to determing risk, when the government insists that they are regulating the franchisor to make him disclose the risks to the consumer, what is this?

on July 4th, 2007

One more time I do not broker franchises or have clients

Do you understand? 

The Truth Shall Set You Free!


Posted by Truth in Franchising on November 1st, 2007

I suppose many things escape you...

Why are you here? What purpose do you serve? What do you hope to gain?

Oh and by-the-way I do what I want and please no matter what you may want.   

Sleep tight!

The Truth Shall Set You Free!


Posted by Truth in Franchising on December 28th, 2007

State UFOC must be in compliance with Federal Rule

The State UFOC's must be in compliance with the Federal Trade Commission Rule governing disclosure of the risk of the franchise to the prospective franchisees.

Of course the Uniform Franchise Offering Circulars actually disguise the risk and this serves federal regulatory policy.

The franchise agreements, the contracts, serve the aims of federal regulatory policy and are protected by the courts under strict interpretations of contract law.

on November 6th, 2007

Item 20 Ranter it is you who cannot answer simple questions

You despise franchising, franchisors and freedom. You want government to be both your mommy and daddy. 

You sir are a fraud of the highest order. 

The Truth Shall Set You Free!


Posted by Truth in Franchising on October 20th, 2007

Is BMM now part of the Trilateral Commission?

Is BMM in cahoots with the IFA/SBA/AAFD/FTC/ABA conspiracy?

A little known fact is the theory of a World Government is based on franchising the planet's industries and services under the auspices of the Bilderberg Group. 

The Truth Shall Set You Free!


Posted by Truth in Franchising on October 20th, 2007

As a fan of bad puns

As a fan of bad puns and good improv, I would not hesitate to join in comic banter.

As to BMM, this should be a serious site and while I have nothing against a bit of humor, there are a few people whose primary contribution does seem to be rambling bouts of illogic. However, if we can at least attempt to distill some salient points for discussion, that seems a better approach than just ranting against the Ranter.

Plus... sometimes those who rant do stumble across a point, even if only by accident. 

on December 17th, 2007

No, Z-Rube your post says what you are saying!

I am saying your are short on facts and long a populist naive rhetoric. All you have is a fatalistc and bankrupt ideology.

on July 4th, 2007

Are new franchisees who buy units from first-generation

Are those second-generation franchisees, who have acquired retail units in first-generation distress fire-sales, provided with copies of the Franchisors's UFOC prior to the appoval by the franchisor of the asset-purchase agreement and transfer of the franchise agreement.

I know that Michael Seid indicated to Stephen Toporoff of the FTC that this was burdensome and not necessary and wondered what the new rule said about this and what the rationale of the FTC was for keeping this requirement in the rule or for changing the rule to make it not necessary to provide the UFOC to second generation franchisees.

Haven't these second generation franchisees already signed general releases to the franchisor as has the first-generation franchisee in the sale-transfer process that requires the approval of the franchisor.

on July 4th, 2007

i am here...

to learn from the wisdom of others more knowledgeable than myself on the pitfalls of franchising as an industry. I've already posted my personal situation here regarding an experience with franchising.

maybe you could post your purpose here on this board or in the profile of your user account here. that would help us all understand your agenda.

are you a franchisor? a broker? what do you do besides lurk on these boards and mock the ill fortunes of others?

sleep tight.

on January 2nd, 2008

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day...

It doesn't make me want to break all my clocks.

The Truth Shall Set You Free!


Posted by Truth in Franchising on December 17th, 2007