Seems a Canadian restaurant franchise system (30 stores) is trying to organize themselves. I was emailed with the information that there is a meeting happening in 2 weeks and was wondering if I wanted to attend?
In a word: no.
The clincher was that the franchisee’s lawyer was “helping” them organize themselves, presumably under the pretense of affecting “change”.
The only change is usually what is left once the hat is passed to build a “war chest”.
I tend to leave these types of groups well enough alone.
The professional is most-likely creating a litigation group (a fundraising mechanism for a lawsuit) rather than a sustainable franchisee group like an IndFA, let along an Attorneyless Franchisee Network, AFN that harnesses the exponential group power in something like a buying group.
I sent along some links to this very nice lady that should show a +10 year history of predatory franchisor actions by her head office and that I knew what I was talking about.
- Very few lawyers choose to work with me.
- In 10 years of being available to help franchisee groups, make that 3 different ones.
- I develop the case. Deliver it in a bow and soon: Thanks but “why is Les still around?”.
Maybe read what Canadian-born law and economics professor Gillian K. Hadfield has to say about the business of law before you hop into a much more difficult credence good relationship (than a franchisee:franchisor one)?
I wish the restaurant group all the best but I would suggest that they also write out their own narratives and consider submitting them to WikiFranchise.org. At least they could do is to send up a signal to the next wave of investors.
I tend to leave the door open but have learned to ask for payment in advance for 2nd opinions.
Really nice people in difficult times tend to choose the wrong people to trust.
I know. I did.