cheerlee Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 Groveland asks for so many directors just based on it 3350 share :o >:(. So look like everyone here can ask for one director :D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wescobrk Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 I understand taking to task underperforming the S&P but the rest of it doesn't make a lot of sense. Swenson talks a lot about G&A and SG&A but he doesn't mention a thing about they are building the franchise network. Everyone knows this as it is spelled out in the last few years shareholders letters. A classic straw man argument. He doesn't tell us who the CEO of Steak N Shake will be. WTF? We are suppose to remove Sardar and incur between $78 and $120 million for the change of control for a guy we don't even know who he is? He bought (Swenson) a whopping 345 shares and states they have owned since 2012 but omits that they sold shares over that time frame as well. I like his S&P underperformance argument but the rest looks like someone that doesn't like Sardar personally so therefore we should incur $100 million for a guy he doesn't even know who will take over Steak n Shake and for someone that has 345 shares or his whole fund owns $3k. He clearly doesn't have any conviction in his idea to put such a small amount of money. Maybe I'm missing something but it doesn't make sense to me except for the underperformance of the S&P. The franchise network is growing more disenfranchised (pun intended) daily. What exactly do you think is being built by Sardar? Every franchisee I've spoken with vehemently hates the guy and most wanted to sell me their business. A lot of guys hate Bezos, hated Jobs, Gates, I can go on and on. I'm not bothered by employees hating their CEO's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frugalchief Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 Don't forget Barkett sold out all his shares. That's commitment right there! 8) It's subjective too. Business value has been increasing, stock price has languished. Biglari has been implementing a plan, which they've failed to mention. I agree with wesco that the S&P is the only good argument, but at my age and value investing, I couldn't be happier the stock has stayed low even with business value increasing. Allows me to buy more of a good thing at a great price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mateo999 Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 I understand taking to task underperforming the S&P but the rest of it doesn't make a lot of sense. Swenson talks a lot about G&A and SG&A but he doesn't mention a thing about they are building the franchise network. Everyone knows this as it is spelled out in the last few years shareholders letters. A classic straw man argument. He doesn't tell us who the CEO of Steak N Shake will be. WTF? We are suppose to remove Sardar and incur between $78 and $120 million for the change of control for a guy we don't even know who he is? He bought (Swenson) a whopping 345 shares and states they have owned since 2012 but omits that they sold shares over that time frame as well. I like his S&P underperformance argument but the rest looks like someone that doesn't like Sardar personally so therefore we should incur $100 million for a guy he doesn't even know who will take over Steak n Shake and for someone that has 345 shares or his whole fund owns $3k. He clearly doesn't have any conviction in his idea to put such a small amount of money. Maybe I'm missing something but it doesn't make sense to me except for the underperformance of the S&P. The franchise network is growing more disenfranchised (pun intended) daily. What exactly do you think is being built by Sardar? Every franchisee I've spoken with vehemently hates the guy and most wanted to sell me their business. A lot of guys hate Bezos, hated Jobs, Gates, I can go on and on. I'm not bothered by employees hating their CEO's. I agree that sometimes employees hate their employers but fail to see the relevance. What do employee/employer relations at tech companies have to do with a prospective FF franchisee deciding against a SNS and going with another concept? Or an existing franchisee deciding to pull commitments on unit openings? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wescobrk Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 Grab your balls Swenson and really take on Biglari. You can't half ass take on a guy like Biglari. Either go all in or get the hell out of there. That's like sending Fredo to kill Michael Corleone. We all know how that turned out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frugalchief Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 I feel like this annual meeting could be produced by WWE and sold on PPV... Maxim girls & Steakburgers everywhere... Only to have Jonathan Dash (anybody remember him?) come out of the crowd & hit Swenson with a chair before the final votes are taken. Been 3 yrs since I've been to the meeting. Can't wait for the throw down Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wescobrk Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 I understand taking to task underperforming the S&P but the rest of it doesn't make a lot of sense. Swenson talks a lot about G&A and SG&A but he doesn't mention a thing about they are building the franchise network. Everyone knows this as it is spelled out in the last few years shareholders letters. A classic straw man argument. He doesn't tell us who the CEO of Steak N Shake will be. WTF? We are suppose to remove Sardar and incur between $78 and $120 million for the change of control for a guy we don't even know who he is? He bought (Swenson) a whopping 345 shares and states they have owned since 2012 but omits that they sold shares over that time frame as well. I like his S&P underperformance argument but the rest looks like someone that doesn't like Sardar personally so therefore we should incur $100 million for a guy he doesn't even know who will take over Steak n Shake and for someone that has 345 shares or his whole fund owns $3k. He clearly doesn't have any conviction in his idea to put such a small amount of money. Maybe I'm missing something but it doesn't make sense to me except for the underperformance of the S&P. The franchise network is growing more disenfranchised (pun intended) daily. What exactly do you think is being built by Sardar? Every franchisee I've spoken with vehemently hates the guy and most wanted to sell me their business. A lot of guys hate Bezos, hated Jobs, Gates, I can go on and on. I'm not bothered by employees hating their CEO's. I agree that sometimes employees hate their employers but fail to see the relevance. What do employee/employer relations at tech companies have to do with a prospective FF franchisee deciding against a SNS and going with another concept? Or an existing franchisee deciding to pull commitments on unit openings? Good point, the Gates and Jobs are relevant though as Gates comes across as a major asshole from co-founder Paul Allen and we all know the infamous stories of Steve Jobs. It would be better to relate other restaurant companies and franchisees but I'm certainly no restaurant historian. I stand by the overall point though just because other partners want to sell doesn't mean it's a good decision (i.e. the franchisees may regret that decision in 5-10 years). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mateo999 Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 I understand taking to task underperforming the S&P but the rest of it doesn't make a lot of sense. Swenson talks a lot about G&A and SG&A but he doesn't mention a thing about they are building the franchise network. Everyone knows this as it is spelled out in the last few years shareholders letters. A classic straw man argument. He doesn't tell us who the CEO of Steak N Shake will be. WTF? We are suppose to remove Sardar and incur between $78 and $120 million for the change of control for a guy we don't even know who he is? He bought (Swenson) a whopping 345 shares and states they have owned since 2012 but omits that they sold shares over that time frame as well. I like his S&P underperformance argument but the rest looks like someone that doesn't like Sardar personally so therefore we should incur $100 million for a guy he doesn't even know who will take over Steak n Shake and for someone that has 345 shares or his whole fund owns $3k. He clearly doesn't have any conviction in his idea to put such a small amount of money. Maybe I'm missing something but it doesn't make sense to me except for the underperformance of the S&P. The franchise network is growing more disenfranchised (pun intended) daily. What exactly do you think is being built by Sardar? Every franchisee I've spoken with vehemently hates the guy and most wanted to sell me their business. A lot of guys hate Bezos, hated Jobs, Gates, I can go on and on. I'm not bothered by employees hating their CEO's. I agree that sometimes employees hate their employers but fail to see the relevance. What do employee/employer relations at tech companies have to do with a prospective FF franchisee deciding against a SNS and going with another concept? Or an existing franchisee deciding to pull commitments on unit openings? Good point, the Gates and Jobs are relevant though as Gates comes across as a major asshole from co-founder Paul Allen and we all know the infamous stories of Steve Jobs. It would be better to relate other restaurant companies and franchisees but I'm certainly no restaurant historian. I stand by the overall point though just because other partners want to sell doesn't mean it's a good decision (i.e. the franchisees may regret that decision in 5-10 years). Not sure I follow your logic, but that's ok. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wescobrk Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 I understand taking to task underperforming the S&P but the rest of it doesn't make a lot of sense. Swenson talks a lot about G&A and SG&A but he doesn't mention a thing about they are building the franchise network. Everyone knows this as it is spelled out in the last few years shareholders letters. A classic straw man argument. He doesn't tell us who the CEO of Steak N Shake will be. WTF? We are suppose to remove Sardar and incur between $78 and $120 million for the change of control for a guy we don't even know who he is? He bought (Swenson) a whopping 345 shares and states they have owned since 2012 but omits that they sold shares over that time frame as well. I like his S&P underperformance argument but the rest looks like someone that doesn't like Sardar personally so therefore we should incur $100 million for a guy he doesn't even know who will take over Steak n Shake and for someone that has 345 shares or his whole fund owns $3k. He clearly doesn't have any conviction in his idea to put such a small amount of money. Maybe I'm missing something but it doesn't make sense to me except for the underperformance of the S&P. The franchise network is growing more disenfranchised (pun intended) daily. What exactly do you think is being built by Sardar? Every franchisee I've spoken with vehemently hates the guy and most wanted to sell me their business. A lot of guys hate Bezos, hated Jobs, Gates, I can go on and on. I'm not bothered by employees hating their CEO's. I agree that sometimes employees hate their employers but fail to see the relevance. What do employee/employer relations at tech companies have to do with a prospective FF franchisee deciding against a SNS and going with another concept? Or an existing franchisee deciding to pull commitments on unit openings? Good point, the Gates and Jobs are relevant though as Gates comes across as a major asshole from co-founder Paul Allen and we all know the infamous stories of Steve Jobs. It would be better to relate other restaurant companies and franchisees but I'm certainly no restaurant historian. I stand by the overall point though just because other partners want to sell doesn't mean it's a good decision (i.e. the franchisees may regret that decision in 5-10 years). Not sure I follow your logic, but that's ok. Maybe I don't follow it either, hehe. I'm pretty feisty today. I'm actually off to the gym now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BTShine Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 I understand taking to task underperforming the S&P but the rest of it doesn't make a lot of sense. Swenson talks a lot about G&A and SG&A but he doesn't mention a thing about they are building the franchise network. Everyone knows this as it is spelled out in the last few years shareholders letters. A classic straw man argument. He doesn't tell us who the CEO of Steak N Shake will be. WTF? We are suppose to remove Sardar and incur between $78 and $120 million for the change of control for a guy we don't even know who he is? He bought (Swenson) a whopping 345 shares and states they have owned since 2012 but omits that they sold shares over that time frame as well. I like his S&P underperformance argument but the rest looks like someone that doesn't like Sardar personally so therefore we should incur $100 million for a guy he doesn't even know who will take over Steak n Shake and for someone that has 345 shares or his whole fund owns $3k. He clearly doesn't have any conviction in his idea to put such a small amount of money. Maybe I'm missing something but it doesn't make sense to me except for the underperformance of the S&P. The franchise network is growing more disenfranchised (pun intended) daily. What exactly do you think is being built by Sardar? Every franchisee I've spoken with vehemently hates the guy and most wanted to sell me their business. A lot of guys hate Bezos, hated Jobs, Gates, I can go on and on. I'm not bothered by employees hating their CEO's. I agree that sometimes employees hate their employers but fail to see the relevance. What do employee/employer relations at tech companies have to do with a prospective FF franchisee deciding against a SNS and going with another concept? Or an existing franchisee deciding to pull commitments on unit openings? Good point, the Gates and Jobs are relevant though as Gates comes across as a major asshole from co-founder Paul Allen and we all know the infamous stories of Steve Jobs. It would be better to relate other restaurant companies and franchisees but I'm certainly no restaurant historian. I stand by the overall point though just because other partners want to sell doesn't mean it's a good decision (i.e. the franchisees may regret that decision in 5-10 years). Not sure I follow your logic, but that's ok. Maybe I don't follow it either, hehe. I'm pretty feisty today. I'm actually off to the gym now. At risk of stepping in where I don't belong... If Mr. Biglari is right in his strategy for SNS then the franchisees might regret selling in 5 or 10 years. I understand his strategy to be first inspire customers to frequent by keeping prices very low and quality high. Let competitors raise prices first (due to beef prices rising, etc, etc). The currently low prices are hated by franchisees, but if SNS can find its point of maximum traffic, then they can test higher prices and see how far off from peak traffic the higher prices bring each store. Get the customers and then figure out how to make money off of them. That is my line of thinking meshed with how I read the annual reports of BH. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ragu Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 Groveland proxy http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/93859/000089706915000122/cg525.htm Factually inaccurate, clueless about why operational results seem as if they are deteriorating, deliberately misleading when making comparisons with predecessor management by ignoring a significant part of the value creation since Sardar took the helm. To top it all off, the obligatory potshot at the company's use of private jets. They've been reading too much of this board, or are being assisted by folks who do. Best, Ragu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
link01 Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 I understand taking to task underperforming the S&P but the rest of it doesn't make a lot of sense. Swenson talks a lot about G&A and SG&A but he doesn't mention a thing about they are building the franchise network. Everyone knows this as it is spelled out in the last few years shareholders letters. A classic straw man argument. He doesn't tell us who the CEO of Steak N Shake will be. WTF? We are suppose to remove Sardar and incur between $78 and $120 million for the change of control for a guy we don't even know who he is? He bought (Swenson) a whopping 345 shares and states they have owned since 2012 but omits that they sold shares over that time frame as well. I like his S&P underperformance argument but the rest looks like someone that doesn't like Sardar personally so therefore we should incur $100 million for a guy he doesn't even know who will take over Steak n Shake and for someone that has 345 shares or his whole fund owns $3k. He clearly doesn't have any conviction in his idea to put such a small amount of money. Maybe I'm missing something but it doesn't make sense to me except for the underperformance of the S&P. The franchise network is growing more disenfranchised (pun intended) daily. What exactly do you think is being built by Sardar? Every franchisee I've spoken with vehemently hates the guy and most wanted to sell me their business. did you talk to 10 franchisees? 50? some other #? what do you think is the minimal statistically significant #? were these franchisees there before biglari became CEO? after? if a mix, what % of each? I think it matters because bigs brought wholesale changes to the way it operated its owned restaurants that extended also to its franchised ones. it wouldn't be surprising if many of the old guard bristled at the changes & either refused to adapt or couldn't adapt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
link01 Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 Groveland proxy http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/93859/000089706915000122/cg525.htm Factually inaccurate, clueless about why operational results seem as if they are deteriorating, deliberately misleading when making comparisons with predecessor management by ignoring a significant part of the value creation since Sardar took the helm. To top it all off, the obligatory potshot at the company's use of private jets. They've been reading too much of this board, or are being assisted by folks who do. Best, Ragu I have a hard time believing that any professional money manager is clueless about the points you allude to, as well as many you don't mention, like the rights offerings issued at below book val & subsequently bought back much higher etc. I think their strategy is to make SB have to mount one defense after the other, even defenses against straw man arguments. they are probably saving their best cards for last. in the mean time they might be able to wear him down, get him riled, & create an unforced error. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
link01 Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 did you talk to 10 franchisees? 50? some other #? what do you think is the minimal statistically significant #? were these franchisees there before biglari became CEO? after? if a mix, what % of each? I think it matters because bigs brought wholesale changes to the way it operated its owned restaurants that extended also to its franchised ones. it wouldn't be surprising if many of the old guard bristled at the changes & either refused to adapt or couldn't adapt. Some of the new franchisees are very happy with their stores. I know this from speaking with them and I also know that the average unit volumes of the new Steak n Shake franchises is on balance incredible. The new franchises are doing an average of $2.5 million - which is phenomenal. The Las Vegas franchise is doing $5 million. So it is not a universal thing at all, but the problem lies in two places: (a) the old franchisees operated autonomously for so long (fifty years in some cases), they have mostly not taken well at all to Biglari coming and dictating terms to them and (b) new franchisees stores that have not worked out are very upset for a few reasons. While the average unit volume for the new stores is incredible, they are some very low-performers. (Notably, according to their lawsuits, the New Jersey store and the Denver store.) Due to Biglari's personality, I think, and the fact the the old franchisees who were already pissed off, worked all of those new and disappointed franchisees into a tizzy. On balance though, many of the new franchises are doing very well and the average unit volume of them is quite impressive. appreciate the color, thx NBL. you can pretty much see this in the franchise revenue #'s, too. in 2013 there were 191 franchised stores, 104 sns & 87 west. franchise revenues were 8,707,000 for approx. 45,600 per store in 2014 there were 195 franchised stores, 124 sns & 71 west. franchise revenues were15,032,000 for approx. 77,100 per store (+69% per store) but there were 49 franchised store closings from 2013 to 2014, & 53 new openings. clearly a lot of weeding out of the old & sick, 33 sns & 16 west the interesting question I have at this point is: how are the gross dollar profits on the 1 yr & older franchised stores looking & trending? its one thing to increase sales thru an increase in traffic while keeping your prices low (or lower than your competitors), but for those stores that cant control their costs & operate ultra efficiently the increased traffic & sales may not be enough to offset their growing costs. hence the acrimony Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BTShine Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 its one thing to increase sales thru an increase in traffic while keeping your prices low (or lower than your competitors), but for those stores that cant control their costs & operate ultra efficiently the increased traffic & sales may not be enough to offset their growing costs. hence the acrimony Very good point. Yes. Good point. One could argue that is the fairest way to weed out the underperforming operators from the rest. I'm not sure if that was the best way to 'cull the herd' (for lack of a better saying), but it's likely the most profitable long term. I'd bet the high performing franchisees are happy the underperforming franchisees are not hurting the brand anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frugalchief Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 Here's Grovelands' letter... http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/93859/000089706915000125/cg526.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuhndan Posted February 14, 2015 Share Posted February 14, 2015 I don't get it. Groveland has such a small investment in BH, how in the world could it make sense to pursue a proxy contest. Even if they win, it just doesn't seem worth it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rayfinkle Posted February 14, 2015 Share Posted February 14, 2015 I don't get it. Groveland has such a small investment in BH, how in the world could it make sense to pursue a proxy contest. Even if they win, it just doesn't seem worth it. Great point. I don't mean to malign them, but that's why I've been thinking it is sort of a publicity stunt sort of thing - because their investment is so tiny in it. There are probably 25 people on this board with more shares than they have. And it hardly seems worth their time since their investment is so small, unless of course they want to make a name for themselves. I have a question for everyone: does anyone think that Groveland has a shot at winning control of the board? I really don't see how they have a chance to win because BH is mostly owned by institutions and enough of them are going to vote with Biglari that it seems prohibitive to Groveland, but if Groveland loses they would evidently be out the $175,000 they are spending on this. Since that is like 20% of their investment cost in BH itself, I'm just wondering, does that mean that they really think they are going to win? proxy firm recommends them then that could be impactful Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frugalchief Posted February 14, 2015 Share Posted February 14, 2015 I don't get it. Groveland has such a small investment in BH, how in the world could it make sense to pursue a proxy contest. Even if they win, it just doesn't seem worth it. Great point. I don't mean to malign them, but that's why I've been thinking it is sort of a publicity stunt sort of thing - because their investment is so tiny in it. There are probably 25 people on this board with more shares than they have. And it hardly seems worth their time since their investment is so small, unless of course they want to make a name for themselves. I have a question for everyone: does anyone think that Groveland has a shot at winning control of the board? I really don't see how they have a chance to win because BH is mostly owned by institutions and enough of them are going to vote with Biglari that it seems prohibitive to Groveland, but if Groveland loses they would evidently be out the $175,000 they are spending on this. Since that is like 20% of their investment cost in BH itself, I'm just wondering, does that mean that they really think they are going to win? I could see them maybe getting 1 or 2 seats....but it's still a longshot. I say that bc someone had previously mentioned that other BH directors had barely received affirmative votes in prior years, so I could see a change in that regard, but not control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parsad Posted February 14, 2015 Share Posted February 14, 2015 Groveland proxy http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/93859/000089706915000122/cg525.htm Factually inaccurate, clueless about why operational results seem as if they are deteriorating, deliberately misleading when making comparisons with predecessor management by ignoring a significant part of the value creation since Sardar took the helm. To top it all off, the obligatory potshot at the company's use of private jets. They've been reading too much of this board, or are being assisted by folks who do. Best, Ragu What the hell does that mean? Have I ever modified or deleted anything you and Gio wrote on here? Would they not read what you wrote as well and formulate an independent opinion? Or are you saying that people disregard the completely rational arguments you make, and back this nonsensical and irrational stance that has totally misunderstood Biglari Holdings, its CEO, and their board of directors. That a rational person would never be able to make that argument? Frankly, I don't think Groveland has a good shot at this. Too small a stake, done a bit hastily, against someone who would go through a hell of a lot before he gives up control...for better or worse! But they may get a seat on this captive board...heck, they may luck out and get two! And if they do...good for them and Biglari Holdings' shareholders! Cheers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
giofranchi Posted February 14, 2015 Share Posted February 14, 2015 the interesting question I have at this point is: how are the gross dollar profits on the 1 yr & older franchised stores looking & trending? its one thing to increase sales thru an increase in traffic while keeping your prices low (or lower than your competitors), but for those stores that cant control their costs & operate ultra efficiently the increased traffic & sales may not be enough to offset their growing costs. hence the acrimony link01, You definitely seem a very clear thinker about business matters in general! Therefore, I am a bit surprised by your question... In most kinds of business what you say "keeping your prices low (or lower than your competitors)" is practically all that really matters... Surely it is the most important thing in the restaurant business! And Biglari knows this very well. BH franchise revenues migth suffer if and only if the operations of the restaurants which generate those franchise revenues stop to be run at prices lower than their competitors. Therefore, imo your question is simply answered: those stores that can't control their costs & operate ultra efficiently have no reason to go on existing. It migth seem a bit brutal... But there is truly nothing anyone can do about it... Surely I don't see Biglari fighting against reality. If reality upsets old franchisees, so be it... History is full of people who couldn't adapt and kept fighting reality... The outcome has always been the same! Gio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
link01 Posted February 14, 2015 Share Posted February 14, 2015 the interesting question I have at this point is: how are the gross dollar profits on the 1 yr & older franchised stores looking & trending? its one thing to increase sales thru an increase in traffic while keeping your prices low (or lower than your competitors), but for those stores that cant control their costs & operate ultra efficiently the increased traffic & sales may not be enough to offset their growing costs. hence the acrimony link01, You definitely seem a very clear thinker about business matters in general! Therefore, I am a bit surprised by your question... In most kinds of business what you say "keeping your prices low (or lower than your competitors)" is practically all that really matters... Surely it is the most important thing in the restaurant business! And Biglari knows this very well. BH franchise revenues migth suffer if and only if the operations of the restaurants which generate those franchise revenues stop to be run at prices lower than their competitors. Therefore, imo your question is simply answered: those stores that can't control their costs & operate ultra efficiently have no reason to go on existing. It migth seem a bit brutal... But there is truly nothing anyone can do about it... Surely I don't see Biglari fighting against reality. If reality upsets old franchisees, so be it... History is full of people who couldn't adapt and kept fighting reality... The outcome has always been the same! Gio <<In most kinds of business what you say "keeping your prices low (or lower than your competitors)" is practically all that really matters... Surely it is the most important thing in the restaurant business!>> well, this is only true if you are among the more efficient, low-cost operators in your industry. what I'm not so sure about at this point is if the older sns franchisees were positioned for the sort of sudden, drastic sea-change that SB introduced shortly into his tenure, with his sam Walton inspired focus on increasing sales turnover or velocity (ie, traffic) while keeping costs & prices low & favoring gross profit dollars over profit margins. so, for some or many of those older franchisees the increase in sales may not be falling to their bottom line while it most certainly will be for the franchisor, given its its model of taking a fixed % of franchisee sales. its no wonder there's so much sturm und drang between them! they probably believe, not without reason, that they are better equipted to gage price elasticity in their local markets than head quarters. they had the ability to make those calls before, now they don't,& they're getting pinched. but, of course, if sns can manage to flourish with their co owed & operated stores under SB's model of low cost, low prices, & increased traffic then a shakeout is not only inevitable but desirable, & the quicker the better. then again, maybe a gradual, measured, stair-step plan with a agreed upon timeline for old franchisees to get with the program might have been considered too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheerlee Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 Hi, all I am planning a trip for BH annual meeting. Do you know any activity besides the meeting? any comments from previous annual meeting experience? thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frugalchief Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 Besides calling Biglari a "billionaire," interesting article about direction of Maxim. http://fashionista.com/2015/02/kate-lanphear-interview-new-maxim-march-2015 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jurgis Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 Great move by GAMCO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now