- Joined
- Aug 1, 2014
- Messages
- 26,719
- Reaction score
- 6,278
- Location
- California
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
Translation: you still can supply the quote and you are deflecting, we get it LMAO
No, I won the argument.
ANother dodge and Zero qoute supporting your claim. LMAO We are waiting, please provide it, thanks!!!
'We'? Who exactly is 'we'?
Anyway, I clearly said 'strawman' andopcorn2: so I think we both know I won.
Heck even if this was James “Jim” Crichton Creamery this would still be a totally stupid and vile move.
(not saying you claimed otherwise just saying)
Words like idiot, moron, dumbass, retard, jackass etc etc don't even seem to do him justice lol
And another doge and zero proof to the lie you got caught posting. LMAO Awesome. When you can provide that qoute, please let us know, thanks!!
Why the **** are you insulting idiots, dumbasses, retards anf jackasses by comparing them to this waste of DNA?
That's actually a solid point. There are idiots, dumbasses, retards and jackasses WAY above him who are way more civil and less vile.
I'm being called "idiots, dumbasses, retards and jackasses" in BN MSM?
Post #225 is still owning your every post. Please answer when you can, thanks! LMAO
opcorn2:
This back and forth is just getting way to stupid for me. It doesn't do any justice at all to your very own OP. I am going to be the bigger man and call it quits because this tangent is really too idiotic to continue. Go ahead and call me every name you want and accept my pathetic surrender because I do. This is like debating which bones dogs like best - not worth the debate.
This may surprise you, but I'm actually not a Dairy Queen executive. Are you saying employers shouldn't have the power to fire employees who yell racial slurs at customers?You want to end Crichton's career, and send 10-20 people to the unemployment line, because 1 man said a word that you don't like. I wouldn't be pointing fingers there brah.
This may surprise you, but I'm actually not a Dairy Queen executive. Are you saying employers shouldn't have the power to fire employees who yell racial slurs at customers?
No.
And I agree with prior statements about Dairy Queen being legally within its rights to close the Zion location.
However, I disagree with the hysteria surrounding this story. People get into arguments with customers everyday, there's 100's of videos on YouTube documenting that. I doubt that the businesses in those videos were all closed because an argument occurred. What makes this story different, is that Crichton said a particular word while arguing with a customer.
What "hysteria"?
No.
And I agree with prior statements about Dairy Queen being legally within its rights to close the Zion location.
However, I disagree with the hysteria surrounding this story. People get into arguments with customers everyday, there's 100's of videos on YouTube documenting that. I doubt that the businesses in those videos were all closed because an argument occurred. What makes this story different, is that Crichton said a particular word while arguing with a customer.
What "hysteria"?
I meant to say hypocrisy.
I'm sure he would have gotten away with calling her a PITA or an idiot or maybe even a bitch. But repeatedly going with the N-word...that's going to bring backlash and too much negative publicity to DQ. "Time to cut our losses," said the corporate honchos at headquarters.No.
And I agree with prior statements about Dairy Queen being legally within its rights to close the Zion location.
However, I disagree with the hysteria surrounding this story. People get into arguments with customers everyday, there's 100's of videos on YouTube documenting that. I doubt that the businesses in those videos were all closed because an argument occurred. What makes this story different, is that Crichton said a particular word while arguing with a customer.
Are you just being polemic here? WTF?
Yeah, the guy can still sell ice cream. But he certainly cannot do it as a Dairy Queen. He cannot use their sighn, he cannot sell their ice cream. he cannot use their trademark on items, like Blizzard, and he probably cannot even use the building as is, the style and layout of which is most likely also under special licensing agreement like a McDonalds.
Jesus ****ing Christ!!
LOL.
Where did I ever imply he could remain a DQ if the corporation voided his franchise agreement for breach of standards?
You claimed DQ could take his business. Your the one looking foolish calamity.
So WTF back at you.
Learn something about a topic before proving you don't know about it. Kind of a credibility thing.
Franchisees do not "own" anything. They, more or less, just lease a license which gives them in return a business model, brand name and right to sell someone else's product. There are strict rules in place that must be followed. It's a far cry from owning your independent business.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/45597863
Not true. In general, a franchisee is licensed to represent the brand following the methods and branding identity required by the franchising organization. If a franchisee violates the agreement, the franchisor can revoke the license to represent their brand. They can't take the business.
Revocation means all identity, menu's, etc., must be removed. They can't take the building, the equipment, etc. That is the sole property of the franchisee. A franchisee could re-open their business selling the same type of items, but there can be no implied connection to the original franchisor operation.
The only exception to this rule is when the franchisor finances the purchase of the business. McDonald's does this as a manner of course. For example, McDonald's frequently owns the land the restaurant is built on and leases it to the franchisee. It's possible that lease includes a stipulation that the business must be a McDonalds Crop operation. I don't know if DQ follows that model.
This happens frequently.
Possibly true. Since I currently have no full knowledge of the agreement I couldn't say one way or another. Jim my own the property and facility or he may not. Haven't read anything about that yet.
I didn't say they could take "his business." I said something completely different.
And, my bitch was with your response to that quote, particularly the first two words.
You wrote this:
Franchisees do not "own" anything. They, more or less, just lease a license, business model, brand name and right to sell someone else's product.
So franchisees don't own anything? I corrected you on that. Not sure why you are doubling down on that.
Keep going if you must, most entertaining.
They certainly do not own the franchise's business model, brand or the rights to the products they sell. They rarely, if ever, own the building from which they operate. They do not own the equipment. They do not own much except the license to sell the franchise's products, at prices set by the franchise.
Franchisees are 100% beholden to the rules set by the franchiser. A McDonald's franchisee cannot simply tell corporate to take a hike and start selling homemade burgers and chicken sandwiches under the Golden Arches and call them Big Macs, Quarter Pounders and McChickens. He can't just go out and buy his own fries. He can't even go out and buy his own cups and straws. :roll:
You wrote the franchisee doesn't own anything. Unless it's under the circumstances I described (McDonalds for example) that statement is false.
Perhaps if you read what I wrote, you wouldn't be so adamant to prove how wrong you are.
An operator who has lost his license can most certainly sell items the restaurant is designed to prepare and sell. They can open themselves to lawsuits if they attempt in any way to operate with any way that implies they may still be affiliated with the franchisor.
For example, they can't re-open as "Dairy Princess" and sell items like a "snowstorm", or any other similar reference.
There are some agreements that include a period of non-compete, but those have loopholes that most former franchisees can work around.
Look, I'm not trying to hammer you into submission. I spent 25 years working with Franchising Corporations including McDonalds, DQ, Wendy's, Yum Brands, etc., etc.. I worked directly with Franchisee Groups.
I'm not speaking from ignorance here calamity.
McDonald’s is one of the biggest real estate companies in the world. It owns $28.4 billion worth of land and buildings, before depreciation. It also leases the land, the buildings or both on 15,000 of its restaurant sites. In most cases, the company controls the real estate regardless of how the site or the building is obtained. It then leases those sites to the franchisees, often at a big markup.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?