Attorneys steer this Ship of Fools

What kind of professional would intentionally provide a creditor’s wife a faulty chair to sit in?

Would you trust that person?

Would you trust his landlord?

If you knew what I know, What would you call them both?

Good answer.

4 Responses to Attorneys steer this Ship of Fools

  1. Carol Cross says:

    Obviously, it is the attorneys who steer the “Ship of Fools” –the franchise investment — in their own interests.

    If you can’t get on or off the ship without their help –this is certainly good for business — good for the franchisors, good for the bankers, good for the landlords –and always, no matter what the scenario, good for the attorneys.

    If the “Ship of Fools” actually wrecks and never makes it to paradise, who is standing by to help and to sue the owner of the Ship of Fools” for faulty construction of the ship? Who is standing by to take you through bankruptcy when you have lost everything. The lawyers, of course!

    Who is standing by to help you form an independent franchisee association to overcome the “invincible” sales contract, the franchise agreement? The lawyers, of course, who know that that the deck is stacked in favor of the franchisors in the courts by reason of the “invincible” and onerous franchise agreements written by the best attorneys that money can buy.

    Without transparency of the high risk and low rewards to franchisees, the Ship will keep sailing and the fools will continue to be induced by the appearance that franchising is the “proven” road to the dream of a “business of your own” that will deliver a job and profits. The attorneys will continue to enjoy the profits from the “product” produced by the franchise busines model and will continue to steer the ship of folls into harbors that are friendly to franchisors.

    Maybe Shakespeare had it right!


  2. Les Stewart says:


    These two guys are just a little better said than you are:

    * Lord what Fools these Mortals Be

    * A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.

    * The path is smooth that leadeth on to danger.

    * All things are ready, if our minds be so.

    It is the peculiar quality of a fool to perceive the faults of others and to forget his own. Cicero



  3. Carol Cross says:

    Ah yes! And how about that “there is no fool like an old fool” and those old fools who think they can make a difference and tame or in any way change the great nasty and deceptive beast of franchising that feeds on franchise fools. The business model from hell is disguised as an example of the fruits of democratic capitalism and representative government.

    I think I may have just been blocked out of “unhappy franchisee” because I have tried to explain the premeditated “failure penalties” in the franchise agreements that so advantage the franchisors when franchisees fail and either go into bankruptcy or early terminate to cut their losses to avoid bankruptcy. Also, I guess I have offended a poster who appears to be recruiting franchisees in his/her system to join lawsuits that require a $4,000 retainer and heavy dues each month.

    It is really hard to keep track of who is stealing from whom?


  4. Carol Cross says:

    Talking about the deceptive beast “the franchise business model” we see that the lack of transparency concerning the financial performance of the units within franchise systems and the ability of franchisors to obscure churning of territories, etc.. and to enable encroachment within the franchise agreement, we should look, Les, at the Brooke Insurance Franchise, the Brooke Corporation bankruptcy, where, probably ONLY the attorneys did very well for themselves and everyone else lost.

    What a mess and even after the Chapter 11’s that are supposed to save franchisors who borrow money more cheaply under the “securitization scheme.” Brooke couldn’t be saved and went into Chapter 7. The franchisor in this case tried to save the system and personally guaranteed millions of dollars and he had to declare personal bankruptcy.

    The SEC came in and removed the stock from Over the Counter. Those who bought securities lost big time. The franchisees, of course, were thrown out of court.

    If there had been transparency of the unprofitability of the franchisees early on, could this mess have been avoided.

    Didn’t everyone but the attorneys lose when the “securitization” of these receivables was made possible under existing law and regulation that doesn’t look at the actual health of the franchise systems in terms of the financial performance of the units within the systems?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: