More questions on our $50,000 payment

 …. for a Best Western franchise we don’t own.

More Franchise Questions

The following are two emails I received from one of my readers who wishes to remain anonymous regarding the now infamous $50,000 payment our mayor and council made to Group|Vachon for a Best Western franchise agreement that the latter is now owner of thanks to our municipality’s generosity… stupidity and lack of due diligence bordering on possible criminality.

Greetings

I do not have a copy of the Best Western contract for the Pass.

I have attached a PDF of the rules by which BW franchisee agreements are played by.

On page 4 Section 7 A the reasons for automatic termination of memberships/ franchises are set forth, they include a change of 50% or more of ownership within a 12 month period.

The agreements also states memberships are either for one year at a time or for four years.

The agreement also states there are annual fees. Annual fees fro an operating BW hotel would be over $50,000 a year for a non operating hotel it is unclear.

So $50,000 has been paid for a franchise which, can not be transferred within its first 12 months, has a shelf life of less than 48 months and needs payments of $50,000 plus per year?

BW Bylaws & Articles 2013

Wondering what a lawyer, a court of law or Best Western might think about the following……

1) Equitable ownership is an arrangement whereby a beneficial owner has the power to influence decisions regarding that ownership, and receives benefits afforded by ownership, even though the ownership may be held by someone else. ( Source – the web)

2) A Best Western Membership shall automatically terminate on the date … a change occurs of 50% or more of the equitable ownership of the Best Western Property within a 12 month period. (Source – BW Bylaws & Articles 2013)

3) Council voted … to reimburse the Vachon Group $50,000 for a franchise application fee to Best Western. …Asked if Vachon Group had signed a memorandum of understanding … Thompson replied yes… ( Source – Pass Promoter August 12 2013)

 

It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong.

from John Prince
This entry was posted in CNP Politics and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to More questions on our $50,000 payment

  1. Anonymous says:

    John
    The council did nothing wrong.
    THEY follow the counsultants advice.

  2. Anonymous says:

    That, of course, would be the consultant who got the $50K, right?

  3. Anonymous says:

    Well, I think we need to move on. Nothing we can do about it now. Look ahead to our election and hopefully we will change things for the better.
    No good in my mind to keep rehashing old issues. What’s done is done.

  4. Anonymous says:

    12:51 Are you brain dead or what? Or the MARE’S son the NAG? You move on AFTER you find a way to recuperate the money that was stolen from the taxpayers. I’ll even explain to you why?

    The same second class people that permitted this to happen are apparently running again for Council in the coming election. WE got away with $50K, next time WE’LL make it a $100K, or more.

    Get on those IDIOTS case right now. We should forgive them after they have been punished that this kind of nonsense has to stop and soon. While giving a good warning to the next bunch who plan on filling their shoes. We forgive honest mistakes. This however, was a well planned and organised F—UP. Hope you understand this? If not, explain yourself and convince me.

  5. Anonymous says:

    2:25
    You are absolutely right! I totally agree with you. They can’t be allowed to get away with this. They must be held accountable. They certainly should NOT be re-elected either. Bad conduct should NOT be rewarded.

  6. Anonymous says:

    This $50,000 reimbursement to the consultant, because this is what it amounts to, is just a sign of very poor money management. $8,000 was spent on lawyers to draft a contract between Medican and the municipality.

    They were doing a deal with a company which was basically coming out of bankruptcy and our money was spent on contracts and fees which were going nowhere.

    The $50,000 is just icing on the cake. After all this nonsense, they still think themselves smarter than the councils which came before them. Not one of them should be re-elected.

  7. Anonymous says:

    Yes….$50,000 to buy more dust in the wind. I am so sick of this. We should have just stood the Mayor and Councillors out on the streets to collect it for free this year. I’m voting for John.,whether he runs or not! Any other choice, would be just more dust.

Leave a Reply