Change we can beleive in

[BanginJimmy]

is proving to be a socialist's wet dream and a capitalist's nightmare.


http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/letter-from-a-dodge-dealer-to-american-thinker/


A member of our Best and Brightest spotted this letter to the editor on the American Thinker website. While plenty of industry watchers could have seen ChryCo’s meltdown coming—DID see it coming—it’s still a failure with a human face. And here it is.

My name is George C. Joseph. I am the sole owner of Sunshine Dodge-Isuzu, a family owned and operated business in Melbourne, Florida. My family bought and paid for this automobile franchise 35 years ago in 1974. I am the second generation to manage this business.

We currently employ 50+ people and before the economic slowdown we employed over 70 local people. We are active in the community and the local chamber of commerce. We deal with several dozen local vendors on a day to day basis and many more during a month. All depend on our business for part of their livelihood. We are financially strong with great respect in the market place and community. We have strong local presence and stability.

I work every day the store is open, nine to ten hours a day. I know most of our customers and all our employees. Sunshine Dodge is my life.

On Thursday, May 14, 2009 I was notified that my Dodge franchise, that we purchased, will be taken away from my family on June 9, 2009 without compensation and given to another dealer at no cost to them. My new vehicle inventory consists of 125 vehicles with a financed balance of 3 million dollars. This inventory becomes impossible to sell with no factory incentives beyond June 9, 2009. Without the Dodge franchise we can no longer sell a new Dodge as “new,” nor will we be able to do any warranty service work. Additionally, my Dodge parts inventory, (approximately $300,000.) is virtually worthless without the ability to perform warranty service. There is no offer from Chrysler to buy back the vehicles or parts inventory.

Our facility was recently totally renovated at Chrysler’s insistence, incurring a multi-million dollar debt in the form of a mortgage at Sun Trust Bank.

HOW IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CAN THIS HAPPEN?

THIS IS A PRIVATE BUSINESS NOT A GOVERNMENT ENTITY

This is beyond imagination! My business is being stolen from me through NO FAULT OF OUR OWN. We did NOTHING wrong.

This atrocity will most likely force my family into bankruptcy. This will also cause our 50+ employees to be unemployed. How will they provide for their families? This is a total economic disaster.

HOW CAN THIS HAPPEN IN A FREE MARKET ECONOMY IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA?

I beseech your help, and look forward to your reply. Thank you.

Sincerely,
George C. Joseph
President
Sunshine Dodge-Isuzu

[tony]

Right, cause the man who just got elected in January is the reason for the downfall of Chrysler. This problem started well before Obama got close to the oval office. The cause of bankruptcy takes a lot more than 5 months. Another reason why the republican party is crumbling, still too busy throwing shots at the other side when their own house isn't settled.

[joecoolfreak]

I am just not seeing how this is Obama's or even the government's fault at all. For all you that keep saying that free market and capitalism is the way to go, this is the result. The owner of the dealership went into a contract with a business that was doomed. He didn't try to sell is franchise when the company was having troubles. He relied soley on a product that wasn't financially sound and he bought that product to sell on credit. Sounds like he was a pretty bad businessman and now the free market is taking him out. What is it that you would have liked to happen. He "owned" a franchise with a company filed for bankruptcy. That means their contracts aren't valid anymore. He signed that contract and that's his own fault. They aren't confiscating his inventory, he just doesn't think he can sell it. When someone buys crap then can't afford to pay for it, do you think the government should "bail" him out by forcing someone else to buy the crap?

Sounds like the capitalists are suddenly becoming a little socialist around here when they see the results of a "free market".

[T.C.]

^I hope you would sing the same tune if your business was taken away.

[BanginJimmy]

I blame this on Obama because it was the govt that forced these changes on Chrysler. That means it was Obama that forced these changes on Chrysler. Just like the govt forced the bankruptcy terms that heavily benefited the unions at the expense of the bond holders.

What about this whole thing doesnt reek of Obama?

[tony]

^I hope you would sing the same tune if your business was taken away.

Chrysler downsized, simple as that. If you get laid off did you lose your job or did they take it away from you? It was given to you.. he owns his franchise and still does, his supplier has now cut him off.

I don't see how anyone could say this is Obama being socialist or attacking capitalism when this process IS capitalism, just not the pretty side of it.

[joecoolfreak]

Again, his business isn't being "taken" away. He is losing it because he failed at business.

If my only source of income was to sell Product A and the manufacturer of Product A files for bankruptcy...what do you suggest should happen to me?

[tony]

I blame this on Obama because it was the govt that forced these changes on Chrysler. That means it was Obama that forced these changes on Chrysler. Just like the govt forced the bankruptcy terms that heavily benefited the unions at the expense of the bond holders.

What about this whole thing doesnt reek of Obama?

The hell? I usually have some faith in your arguments but this one is asinine and obviously biased. I can't even argue that logic.

[BanginJimmy]

He relied soley on a product that wasn't financially sound

What product was that? The business was profitable, therefore financially sound.




and he bought that product to sell on credit. Sounds like he was a pretty bad businessman and now the free market is taking him out.

The financed value just means that it what the vehicles on the lot cost. They may or may not be paid for. Then he was forced by Dodge to perform multi-millions worth of renovations. In a bad economy he didnt have the cash on hand to pay for it.




What is it that you would have liked to happen. He "owned" a franchise with a company filed for bankruptcy.

This is not a function of a free economy though. The dealership was profitable. Profitable businesses are not shut down by a free economy.



That means their contracts aren't valid anymore.

I wonder if this holds true for the parasitic unions that DONT make money and simply cost money.


They aren't confiscating his inventory, he just doesn't think he can sell it.

But they are devaluing his inventory by ~50% with no compensation.



When someone buys crap then can't afford to pay for it, do you think the government should "bail" him out by forcing someone else to buy the crap?

Your messiah is doing with with people that lied on their mortgage applications, why not someone owning and running a profitable business?



Q. What if you lied on your mortgage application?

A. The measure doesn't bar people who got their loans in the past without submitting complete or accurate financial documentation. However, the homeowner would be required to give the bankruptcy court a good-faith plan, including proper documentation, for repaying his debts.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/03/06/business/econwatch/entry4848122.shtml


Sounds like the capitalists are suddenly becoming a little socialist around here when they see the results of a "free market".

Name a single portion of this is the result of a free market. The free market does not force a business to shut down a profitable franchise. The free market forces a business to eliminate unproductive portions of their business, such as the unions.

[BanginJimmy]

Let me clear 1 thing up before I respond, as I can see how you can be confused by my statement. I dont blame the fall of Chrysler on Obama, I blame the bankruptcy and everything that comes of it on Obama.





The hell? I usually have some faith in your arguments but this one is asinine and obviously biased. I can't even argue that logic.

You cant argue it because it is true. Even the NY Times reported that Obama forced the terms of the bankruptcy that benefited the UAW.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/01/business/01auto.html

CBS agrees, check out the fifth paragraph down.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/05/07/politics/otherpeoplesmoney/main4997900.shtml


What other proof do you need?

[BanginJimmy]

Chrysler downsized, simple as that. If you get laid off did you lose your job or did they take it away from you? It was given to you.. he owns his franchise and still does, his supplier has now cut him off.

agreed


I don't see how anyone could say this is Obama being socialist or attacking capitalism when this process IS capitalism, just not the pretty side of it.

This process is NOT capitalism as this man's business was profitable. This is socialist is the govt is FAR too involved in running businesses. That is so far out of the scope of the fed govt's authority it needs no explanation.

[BanginJimmy]

Again, his business isn't being "taken" away. He is losing it because he failed at business.

How is running a profitable business being bad at business?

[joecoolfreak]

What product was that? The business was profitable, therefore financially sound.

The Chrysler vehicles produced by Chrysler. In case you missed the news, they filed for bankruptcy. That means they weren't profitable or financially sound. They were producing the products he was selling through a contract he signed with them. That means he wasn't very financially sound. This also didn't happen suddenly. He had plenty of opportunities to try and prevent himself from getting into this mess.


The financed value just means that it what the vehicles on the lot cost. They may or may not be paid for. Then he was forced by Dodge to perform multi-millions worth of renovations. In a bad economy he didnt have the cash on hand to pay for it.

They aren't paid for, he borrowed money to sell product he didn't own:
My new vehicle inventory consists of 125 vehicles with a financed balance of 3 million dollars. That means he still owes 3 million.


This is not a function of a free economy though. The dealership was profitable. Profitable businesses are not shut down by a free economy.

His source of income was selling a product under contract with a failed business. When the manufacturer of your products goes out of business, it doesn't matter if you were successful at selling those products, the free market has still shut you down. You should have known better than to sell a product under a contract that was not likely to exist in the future.


I wonder if this holds true for the parasitic unions that DONT make money and simply cost money.

I hope so. I would love for anyone that goes bankrupt to void their contracts with the unions and start a more profitable business. Irrelevant to this discussion though.


But they are devaluing his inventory by ~50% with no compensation.
Who is? No one is devaluing his inventory. He just can't sell his product he bought (on credit) without rebates from the manufacturer (who doesn't have to give him those incentives). That sounds like a bad businessman to me.


Your messiah is doing with with people that lied on their mortgage applications, why not someone owning and running a profitable business?
My messiah? I have never stated as such. I just don't blame him for everything under the sun. And again, an irrelevant point.


Name a single portion of this is the result of a free market. The free market does not force a business to shut down a profitable franchise. The free market forces a business to eliminate unproductive portions of their business, such as the unions.
All of this is free market. Chrysler was a crappy business. They filed for bankruptcy. Most of the Chrysler dealers are getting the shaft. That is because they chose to do business with a crappy business. The only thing that wouldn't be free market, is if the courts or the current administration did something to force Chrysler to buy back the inventory or uphold the franchise contracts.

[BanginJimmy]

Joe, I'm not argueing that Chrysler has the right to viod its contracts when they declare bankruptcy. That doesnt change the fact that Chrysler would not be shutting down profitable franchises without govt interference. Why would they? Give me a single reason why a corporation that is hemorrhaging money would get rid of a profitable franchise.

[BanginJimmy]

My messiah? I have never stated as such. I just don't blame him for everything under the sun. And again, an irrelevant point.

So why didnt Bush get this same free ride from liberals? Hell, Bush is still blamed bad a bad economy when its obvious that the groundwork for the downfall was a Clinton baby.

[joecoolfreak]

Joe, I'm not argueing that Chrysler has the right to viod its contracts when they declare bankruptcy. That doesnt change the fact that Chrysler would not be shutting down profitable franchises without govt interference. Why would they? Give me a single reason why a corporation that is hemorrhaging money would get rid of a profitable franchise.

Show me some evidence that this is a fact, and I will agree that we were arguing different points. The long and short of it is that Chrysler has to shut down some franchises and there is no "fair" way to choose. Do you really think that the dealership down the street that will be picking up his franchise had secret ties to the obama administration. It's really simple, a few dealerships will get lucky enough to keep theirs and the rest are going to shut down. Personally, I think that they deserve it because they weren't smart enough to diversify their product line.

[BanginJimmy]

Show me some evidence that this is a fact, and I will agree that we were arguing different points.

Read the articles that I posted for Tony. They show how deeply Obama was involved.



Personally, I think that they deserve it because they weren't smart enough to diversify their product line.

Ever seen a dealship that sold new Fords and new Chevys? How about new Hondas and new Toyotas?

When you sell new vehicles you cannot diversify.

[joecoolfreak]

Read the articles that I posted for Tony. They show how deeply Obama was involved.

I read both and besides saying that Obama was involved and mentioning the dispersal to creditors, you haven't shown one ounce of evidence that says if obama wasn't involved, that this dealership would still get to keep his franchise. It's just as likely that if Obama didn't get involved that none of the current dealerships would have been allowed to keep their franchises. For all we know, he was the one pushing for some of them to be kept. I still don't see how any of what was mentioned in the article has to do with this dealership and his problems. What he is dealing with is the results of a free market situation. What the debtors that loaned money to chrysler while it was failing are going to receive is a completely different situation. That is a perfect example of government budding into private business, but there isn't any evidence that it is to the detriment of anyone except creditors yet.


Ever seen a dealship that sold new Fords and new Chevys? How about new Hondas and new Toyotas?

When you sell new vehicles you cannot diversify.

http://www.covertauto.com/

Look into Covert here in Texas. They have been around since 1909 and are still a small family owned business.

I am pretty sure they know how to diversify

[BanginJimmy]

I read both and besides saying that Obama was involved and mentioning the dispersal to creditors, you haven't shown one ounce of evidence that says if obama wasn't involved, that this dealership would still get to keep his franchise. It's just as likely that if Obama didn't get involved that none of the current dealerships would have been allowed to keep their franchises. For all we know, he was the one pushing for some of them to be kept. I still don't see how any of what was mentioned in the article has to do with this dealership and his problems. What he is dealing with is the results of a free market situation. What the debtors that loaned money to chrysler while it was failing are going to receive is a completely different situation. That is a perfect example of government budding into private business, but there isn't any evidence that it is to the detriment of anyone except creditors yet.

I never said that Obama personally dictated that this dealership would be saved. I am simply showing how deeply Obama is involved and that Obama's version of bankrputcy hurts everyone but the UAW. Bond holders and private businesses are to blame, but the UAW is going to save Chrysler?




http://www.covertauto.com/

Look into Covert here in Texas. They have been around since 1909 and are still a small family owned business.

I am pretty sure they know how to diversify

I saw links for several different dealerships. That has nothing to do with diversity as none of those dealerships are diversified and are all separate entities. If they owned a Dodge dealership they are just as likely that they would be screwed alongside the guy in Florida.

[joecoolfreak]

I haven't seen anyone that it does hurt, except for some investors. I don't necessarily agree with supporting the unions, but that is beyond the point at the moment. All of those dealerships are owned by the same person/family. The point is the same person has a ford and a chevy dealership and there isn't anything stopping them. Sometimes, they are right next to each other.

Same thing here; http://www.championdealer.com/

Same people own a BMW, Acura, Cheverolet, Ford, Hyundai, Isuzu, Nissan, Scion, Toyota, Maybach, and a mini dealership. That is diversity. Even if they had a dodge dealership, I don't think they would have to go bankrupt now would they?

Let's look at it another way. Let's say that I buy a Subway franchise. I purchase the rights to sell their stuff and buy their products and use their name. In a few years from now, I look at the economy and realize that subway is not doing well. Their profits are down 48% and they are relying on creditors and investors to keep them alive. They are spending vast amounts of money and not turning any profits. Now, keep in mind, I am still selling sandwiches and doing quite well. If I continue the course and just hope for the best, then I am a crappy businessman, regards of how well I am doing now, because when subway files for bankruptcy and refuses to supply me with more product and the bankruptcy court invalidates my contract with them, then I have store full of product I can't sell and I should have seen it coming. The auto manufacturers didn't suddenly start to have problems. The long and short of it is that if you sell new cars for a living, especially if you sell one of the big three, you are taking a big gamble for long term stability right now. That is just the free market talking, no politics. The current politics don't effect any of this.

[SL65AMG]

I blame this on Obama because it was the govt that forced these changes on Chrysler. That means it was Obama that forced these changes on Chrysler. Just like the govt forced the bankruptcy terms that heavily benefited the unions at the expense of the bond holders.

What about this whole thing doesnt reek of Obama?

He gets the praise when things are good, but he cannot do anything wrong; someone else did it.

[BanginJimmy]

I haven't seen anyone that it does hurt, except for some investors. I don't necessarily agree with supporting the unions, but that is beyond the point at the moment. All of those dealerships are owned by the same person/family. The point is the same person has a ford and a chevy dealership and there isn't anything stopping them. Sometimes, they are right next to each other.

Same thing here; http://www.championdealer.com/

Same people own a BMW, Acura, Cheverolet, Ford, Hyundai, Isuzu, Nissan, Scion, Toyota, Maybach, and a mini dealership. That is diversity. Even if they had a dodge dealership, I don't think they would have to go bankrupt now would they?

Let's look at it another way. Let's say that I buy a Subway franchise. I purchase the rights to sell their stuff and buy their products and use their name. In a few years from now, I look at the economy and realize that subway is not doing well. Their profits are down 48% and they are relying on creditors and investors to keep them alive. They are spending vast amounts of money and not turning any profits. Now, keep in mind, I am still selling sandwiches and doing quite well. If I continue the course and just hope for the best, then I am a crappy businessman, regards of how well I am doing now, because when subway files for bankruptcy and refuses to supply me with more product and the bankruptcy court invalidates my contract with them, then I have store full of product I can't sell and I should have seen it coming. The auto manufacturers didn't suddenly start to have problems. The long and short of it is that if you sell new cars for a living, especially if you sell one of the big three, you are taking a big gamble for long term stability right now. That is just the free market talking, no politics. The current politics don't effect any of this.


You typed all of that and all you had to do was say that you believe a small businessman should be punished for not owning several different franchises.

Maybe he didnt want to own more than 1 franchise? Maybe he had plans to, but then the economy tanked and he decided not to?

I'll have to look it up, but what does it cost for Chrysler to sell their vehicles to a dealer? I would think that it would cost Chrysler nothing and they had everything to gain, just like your Subway franchise.

[joecoolfreak]

No, I think a small businessman should go out of business when his product does. It's that simple. That is capitalism. Forcing anything else is headed to socialism.

[BanginJimmy]

No, I think a small businessman should go out of business when his product does. It's that simple. That is capitalism. Forcing anything else is headed to socialism.


But that is exactly what Obamabots want, socialism. EVERY policy idea Obama has had since he got in office leads towards socialism.

[joecoolfreak]

But that is exactly what Obamabots want, socialism. EVERY policy idea Obama has had since he got in office leads towards socialism.

Which is why I find it ironic that you, who claim to be so capitalistic, are crying when it happens. Why an upstanding conservative like yourself would be pushing for a more socialistic response is what I am pointing out is funny.

Everybody likes the idea of a free market. No one likes the results of a truly free market.

[BanginJimmy]

Which is why I find it ironic that you, who claim to be so capitalistic, are crying when it happens. Why an upstanding conservative like yourself would be pushing for a more socialistic response is what I am pointing out is funny.

Everybody likes the idea of a free market. No one likes the results of a truly free market.


When did I ever say he should be bailed out? This is the result of Obama's mettling with the free market though. If Chrysler dumped the UAW instead of being forced forced to give them more power, Chrysler would be profitable immediately.

[joecoolfreak]

There are way too many "if's" to talk about what would/could have happened. The simply fact is that he had a contract and the contract became null/void when they declared bankruptcy. They could have chosen to keep more dealers or chosen to keep less under other circumstances. There is no evidence that links the president's mettling to why they chose to keep some but not others. The only fair assumption in my opinion given the available facts is that this dealer would have suffered the same fate regardless of the the administration's involvement. Take the whole dealer part you started with and the original article out of the equation and I agree that obama shouldn't have had his hands in the deal, but it in no way effected that this dealership was going to lose either way. and that's the free market I am talking about.

[TIGERJC]

LOL if they weren't getting a bailout period, maybe all the dealerships would have been closed.

[BanginJimmy]

LOL if they weren't getting a bailout period, maybe all the dealerships would have been closed.

They would simply go into chapter 11 and re-structure. If it wasnt for politicians the Big 3 might have a chance to dump the UAW and actually become profitable again.

[TIGERJC]

They would simply go into chapter 11 and re-structure. If it wasnt for politicians the Big 3 might have a chance to dump the UAW and actually become profitable again.
The UAW is just one of their many problems. I get sick and tired of people saying the union is the reason why Detroit is failing. When Detroit was making money, they still made bad decisions like not seeing that suvs and big trucks sells were not going to last.

[hondachik]

The American Automakers bullshit had to be failing plenty of years in the making and they knew it. You kinda hire people to keep up with your profit on a day to day, month to month, and year to year basis. If they saw this BS coming and didn't try to stop it from happening, its on them. You all can't group up at the last second and decide you want an economic bailout just months before Bush leaves office. Kinda puts him in a hard spot, just like it put Obama in a bad spot when he came in to office. With all this BS going on with the US in the past few years (including Iraq, healthcare, medicare, medicare, social security benefits).....the US = Failure.

[BanginJimmy]

The UAW is just one of their many problems. I get sick and tired of people saying the union is the reason why Detroit is failing. When Detroit was making money, they still made bad decisions like not seeing that suvs and big trucks sells were not going to last.


The UAW is the reason detroit is failing. Because of their political support they can bully the Big 3 into pretty much any contract they want. Until recently, GM sold more vehicles than any other car maker, yet they were losing money. Why do you think that is? The legacy costs imposed my the UAW. Things like 95% retirement, and amazing medical coverage. The UAW prevented any type of 401k or other pension plan as it may not be worth as much.

You can try to spin it any way you want, but GM pays about $70 per man hour to build a vehicle while Toyota pays about $45. Yet a comparable Toyota costs more than a GM. This allows Toyota to keep more cash on hand to weather these downturns far better.

[One_Bad_SHO]

With all this BS going on with the US in the past few years (including Iraq, healthcare, medicare, medicare, social security benefits).....the US = Failure.

You should move to France. :goodjob:

[preferredduck]

I am just not seeing how this is Obama's or even the government's fault at all. For all you that keep saying that free market and capitalism is the way to go, this is the result. The owner of the dealership went into a contract with a business that was doomed. He didn't try to sell is franchise when the company was having troubles. He relied soley on a product that wasn't financially sound and he bought that product to sell on credit. Sounds like he was a pretty bad businessman and now the free market is taking him out. What is it that you would have liked to happen. He "owned" a franchise with a company filed for bankruptcy. That means their contracts aren't valid anymore. He signed that contract and that's his own fault. They aren't confiscating his inventory, he just doesn't think he can sell it. When someone buys crap then can't afford to pay for it, do you think the government should "bail" him out by forcing someone else to buy the crap?

Sounds like the capitalists are suddenly becoming a little socialist around here when they see the results of a "free market".

dude are you smoking crack. this sounds like every car company. do you own a home, well it;s a similar deal. i know plenty of developers who pay interest only on their property not selling, kind of like a car lot. hell most business out there have some form of credit or $ owed. you are plain retarted. but obama owns like 80% of the company now and is basically taking everything this man owns and posessions laready had and is giving it to someone else for free it seem. you are a joke buddy.

[tony]

dude are you smoking crack. this sounds like every car company. do you own a home, well it;s a similar deal. i know plenty of developers who pay interest only on their property not selling, kind of like a car lot. hell most business out there have some form of credit or $ owed. you are plain retarted. but obama owns like 80% of the company now and is basically taking everything this man owns and posessions laready had and is giving it to someone else for free it seem. you are a joke buddy.


Please do explain, I'm interested to be enlightened on what you claim in this post.

[joecoolfreak]

dude are you smoking crack. this sounds like every car company. do you own a home, well it;s a similar deal. i know plenty of developers who pay interest only on their property not selling, kind of like a car lot. hell most business out there have some form of credit or $ owed. you are plain retarted. but obama owns like 80% of the company now and is basically taking everything this man owns and posessions laready had and is giving it to someone else for free it seem. you are a joke buddy.

I can't even understand what you are trying to say. Please come back and try again when you are capable of creating simple sentence structure so the rest of us who do speak English can figure it out.

That being said, I am aware that most car dealerships don't pay cash for their inventory, rather that they are on credit. I know that's how they do things, but it doesn't make it any less risky or a good idea. Since you made an analogy to home development, haven't you seen or heard all of the stories about the recent housing market? People who were relying on interest only loans and other "not so good" methods of affording what they couldn't afford for the purpose of reselling got royally screwed. I don't feel sorry for them either. If you buy something on credit and it can't be resold, then you are going to go down. No one has taken any possessions from this dealer. He still has all his inventory. That's most of the problem right there. He wants the government to stick their head into a private business and tell them what to do and you crying about his situation means that you support that kind of behavior from the federal government.

You might want think about that.

[preferredduck]

But that is exactly what Obamabots want, socialism. EVERY policy idea Obama has had since he got in office leads towards socialism.
:goodjob: agreed on this one. we are on a one way trip to having no rights and never running our own business.

[preferredduck]

Please do explain, I'm interested to be enlightened on what you claim in this post.

On Thursday, May 14, 2009 I was notified that my Dodge franchise, that we purchased, will be taken away from my family on June 9, 2009 without compensation and given to another dealer at no cost to them--quote from article. this means that HIS $$ time, and everything else invested is being taken from him and given to someone else, he may have spent $1 maybe 2million who knows but he lost all of it period.


Additionally, my Dodge parts inventory, (approximately $300,000.) is virtually worthless without the ability to perform warranty service. There is no offer from Chrysler to buy back the vehicles or parts inventory.--quote from article. he spent $300k on parts inventory most likely required by chrysler to have on hand that he will not get compensated for, yes he can slowly sell some of the parts via the web etc, but if it's anything like mack trucks you must have a certain amount and type of inventory to do warranty work that comes out of the owners pocket(i ran the parts room for gainesville truck center).

Our facility was recently totally renovated at Chrysler’s insistence, incurring a multi-million dollar debt in the form of a mortgage at Sun Trust Bank.--quote #3--- this is something that most dealers had to do, ford included. they don't want their name with a crappy facility. so he renovated at their expense and now has a great showroom that the new owners could use for free, i doubt it though b/c he probably owns the land and building but with a mortgage with the bank you should kiss it goodbye also.

yes i understand that staying with a crappy brand is a risky move, but to take away things from someone who was trying to do "good for the company" is pretty crappy never the less. even thouygh the brand sucks he cannot sell his inventory as a "new" car anymore and cannot get revenue from servicing the vehicles that are on the road and the customers that have probably been coming there for years.

[preferredduck]

I can't even understand what you are trying to say. Please come back and try again when you are capable of creating simple sentence structure so the rest of us who do speak English can figure it out.

That being said, I am aware that most car dealerships don't pay cash for their inventory, rather that they are on credit. I know that's how they do things, but it doesn't make it any less risky or a good idea. Since you made an analogy to home development, haven't you seen or heard all of the stories about the recent housing market? People who were relying on interest only loans and other "not so good" methods of affording what they couldn't afford for the purpose of reselling got royally screwed. I don't feel sorry for them either. If you buy something on credit and it can't be resold, then you are going to go down. No one has taken any possessions from this dealer. He still has all his inventory. That's most of the problem right there. He wants the government to stick their head into a private business and tell them what to do and you crying about his situation means that you support that kind of behavior from the federal government.

You might want think about that.

that was a weak insult, my turn now. you must not speak english b/c everthing is on credit, including you.

i do not support the government in private business, but consider the fact that the obama admin owns 80% of chrysler guess what just happened to that guy. and the housing market, dont get me started on that one b/c i was a loan officer for a few years and i do not feel sorry for even my friends who lost their home b/c of an interest only ARM. It wasn't just people trying to resell a home that got screwed either, mostly people who wanted to keep up with the jone's etc lost their homes. you can thank our gov't for derregulating the mortgage industry years ago and coming up with these crap loans that interest only is paid on. freddie mac and fannie may are going belly up too b/c of the mess. but again you can thank washington DC and the federal reserve for that. the fed controls the interest rate for mortgages, credit cards, you name it they control it. hell i think it was alan greenspan who basically came out and said they were responsible for the meltdown in housing. i will say this, it's not over, look for uncle sam to own morre of america, and guess who owns uncle sam, the federal reserve bank, and you guessed it it's a private bank.

so that being said i guess it is america's fault b/c every dime the gov't gets is on CREDIT. every last penny of it is borrowed. does that put a new spin on things for you WE ARE ALL ON CREDIT, that tax $$ that comes out of your check is going to pay interest on the loans that some dumbass politician borrowed for a pet project, sounds fun huh. so BASICALLY WHAT YOU SAID MEANS THAT WE NEED TO SHUT DOWN OUR GOV'T, HIGHWAYS, FOOD DELIVERY, ETC. it's all borrowed $$ so what do you think.

[joecoolfreak]

On Thursday, May 14, 2009 I was notified that my Dodge franchise, that we purchased, will be taken away from my family on June 9, 2009 without compensation and given to another dealer at no cost to them--quote from article. this means that HIS $$ time, and everything else invested is being taken from him and given to someone else, he may have spent $1 maybe 2million who knows but he lost all of it period.


Additionally, my Dodge parts inventory, (approximately $300,000.) is virtually worthless without the ability to perform warranty service. There is no offer from Chrysler to buy back the vehicles or parts inventory.--quote from article. he spent $300k on parts inventory most likely required by chrysler to have on hand that he will not get compensated for, yes he can slowly sell some of the parts via the web etc, but if it's anything like mack trucks you must have a certain amount and type of inventory to do warranty work that comes out of the owners pocket(i ran the parts room for gainesville truck center).

Our facility was recently totally renovated at Chrysler’s insistence, incurring a multi-million dollar debt in the form of a mortgage at Sun Trust Bank.--quote #3--- this is something that most dealers had to do, ford included. they don't want their name with a crappy facility. so he renovated at their expense and now has a great showroom that the new owners could use for free, i doubt it though b/c he probably owns the land and building but with a mortgage with the bank you should kiss it goodbye also.

yes i understand that staying with a crappy brand is a risky move, but to take away things from someone who was trying to do "good for the company" is pretty crappy never the less. even thouygh the brand sucks he cannot sell his inventory as a "new" car anymore and cannot get revenue from servicing the vehicles that are on the road and the customers that have probably been coming there for years.

Since you still don't get it, the only thing that was taken away was his franchise. That is simply a contract with Chrysler that allows him to sell their product under their name. All he lost was his contract. No one took his money, his inventory, his building, or his land. He still has all of those. That being said, Obama had NOTHING to do with that. That happened because Chrysler filed for bankruptcy. Stop blaming Obama for the fact that this guy is a poor businessman. I will again ask: what is it you would have liked to happen in this case?


that was a weak insult, my turn now. you must not speak english b/c everthing is on credit, including you.
Hmm, I was simply remarking that 80% of what you post is unintelligable because you can't form complete sentances in english. I seriously have a difficult time deciphering half of what you write because you don't even attempt to capitalize letters or finish your thoughts in complete sentance structure. I don't claim to spell correctly or have perfect grammer, but I do attempt to write in correct english so that other people can understand what I am saying. It would be the same if you just mumbled for a while, as we don't know what you mean. If you doubt me, look back at some of your posts and read them back out loud.


i do not support the government in private business, but consider the fact that the obama admin owns 80% of chrysler

This would be where Tony's question comes into to play. There is no fact here. Obama doesn't own any part of chrysler. You also failed to provide any evidence as Tony asked.


guess what just happened to that guy. and the housing market, dont get me started on that one b/c i was a loan officer for a few years and i do not feel sorry for even my friends who lost their home b/c of an interest only ARM. It wasn't just people trying to resell a home that got screwed either, mostly people who wanted to keep up with the jone's etc lost their homes. you can thank our gov't for derregulating the mortgage industry years ago and coming up with these crap loans that interest only is paid on. freddie mac and fannie may are going belly up too b/c of the mess. but again you can thank washington DC and the federal reserve for that. the fed controls the interest rate for mortgages, credit cards, you name it they control it. hell i think it was alan greenspan who basically came out and said they were responsible for the meltdown in housing. i will say this, it's not over, look for uncle sam to own morre of america, and guess who owns uncle sam, the federal reserve bank, and you guessed it it's a private bank.

Ok, you may not feel sorry for people who lost their homes to ARM and neither do I. It was their fault, not the governement's. Now if you are saying that I can blame the governement for derregulating the mortgage industry, doesn't that mean you are for more regulation (more government intervention)?


so that being said i guess it is america's fault b/c every dime the gov't gets is on CREDIT. every last penny of it is borrowed. does that put a new spin on things for you WE ARE ALL ON CREDIT, that tax $$ that comes out of your check is going to pay interest on the loans that some dumbass politician borrowed for a pet project, sounds fun huh.

What is the relevance of this? Does the government do things on credit? Sure. Does that mean people can buy everything they want on credit and not have to pay it back? I don't get your point at all here. The simple fact is that the owner of the dealership got what was coming to him and I don't feel sorry for him at all.

I will ask a final time, What do you think should have happened? When Chrysler filed for bankruptcy, what do you think is the proper course of action as it applies to this dealership in question?

[tony]

If McDonalds stops supplying their franchises with Big Macs due to the fact that the McDonalds corporation is losing money on every big mac sold that is simply restructuring which is what GM and Chrysler are doing.. sorry, thats capitalism.

You know whats funny about that letter? Because I know this whole thing started with someone listening to Hannity or Boortz (Heard it on Boortz myself before reading it here) the first line;


On Thursday, May 14, 2009 I was notified that my Dodge franchise, that we purchased, will be taken away from my family

If that was an employee writing about their job Boortz would have said it wasn't your job in the first place and that people have this false sense of entitlement. Well you know what? Those cars belong to Chrysler.. not the franchisee. Do you think each individual McDonalds owns the big mac or the McDonalds corporation? Chrysler is restructuring because their business is not profitable, the guy was going to lose the Chrysler products one way or another.. with or without the current administration.

And again I reiterate, Chrysler didn't crumble in a matter of months, this has been years in the making. A lot of you need to go back and take fundamental economics. The free market doesn't always mean successful business.

[tony]

Read further as to what a franchisee is entitled to;


The United States Office of Advocacy of the SBA indicates that a franchisee "is merely a temporary business investment where he may be one of several investors during the lifetime of the franchise. In other words, he is "renting or leasing" the opportunity, not "buying a business for the purpose of true ownership."

Additionally, "A franchise purchase consists of both intrinsic value and time value. A franchise is a wasting asset due to the finite term: the franchisor is only obliged to renew the franchise if it chooses to contract for that obligation."

In other words, it wasn't his to begin with. Sorry to break it to you like that, these are the risks that are taken when you sign certain contracts. /thread

[BanginJimmy]

I have already posted several links that pointed out how much Obama has had to do with this, yet you just ignore them. No one said Obama picked this exact dealership to close, but he is the one pulling the strings.


Still no one has answered why Chrysler shutting down a profitable franchise though. It simply makes no sense as it costs the Chrysler Corp no money to grant a franchise. Market saturation obviously isnt a problem either, as this one dealership was profitable.

BTW, did a little asking around, 1 reason many dealerships keep their inventory on credit is for insurance purposes. Another reason is for tax purposes. Since the vehicles are on credit they are not considered assets and can more easily be moved if a dealership closes down.

[joecoolfreak]

I have already posted several links that pointed out how much Obama has had to do with this, yet you just ignore them. No one said Obama picked this exact dealership to close, but he is the one pulling the strings.


Still no one has answered why Chrysler shutting down a profitable franchise though. It simply makes no sense as it costs the Chrysler Corp no money to grant a franchise. Market saturation obviously isnt a problem either, as this one dealership was profitable.

BTW, did a little asking around, 1 reason many dealerships keep their inventory on credit is for insurance purposes. Another reason is for tax purposes. Since the vehicles are on credit they are not considered assets and can more easily be moved if a dealership closes down.

It's very simple. To answer your question, this is why Chrysler has chosen to do so: http://www.detnews.com/article/20090521/AUTO01/905210508/1361/Chrysler-exec-defends-cut-of-789-of-its-franchises


Landry said dealers were evaluated based on their sales, share, shipments, customer satisfaction scores, facility, location, whether they sell all three brands and if they operate with a competitor, which is the case for 44 percent of the rejected dealers.

Landry said 83 percent of the rejected dealers sell more used cars than new vehicles and should be able to remain in business as used car dealers.

The guy that has this dealership says he is "profitable" obviously has a different outlook than Chrysler does. I still agree with you that Obama has his hands in the pot, but I have yet to see any source even hint that this decision ( to cut dealers) had anything to do with him.


What you haven't shown or explained is why you think Obama or anyone else would decide to close down profitable dealerships. If there is no good explanation, what is the motivation? Are you suggesting that Obama is just sabotaging small business because it's fun? Or is it that he wants Chrysler to fail even more? What exactly is the motivation behind what you feel is such a poor fiscal decision?

[preferredduck]

Since you still don't get it, the only thing that was taken away was his franchise. That is simply a contract with Chrysler that allows him to sell their product under their name. All he lost was his contract. No one took his money, his inventory, his building, or his land. He still has all of those. That being said, Obama had NOTHING to do with that. That happened because Chrysler filed for bankruptcy. Stop blaming Obama for the fact that this guy is a poor businessman. I will again ask: what is it you would have liked to happen in this case?


Hmm, I was simply remarking that 80% of what you post is unintelligable because you can't form complete sentances in english. I seriously have a difficult time deciphering half of what you write because you don't even attempt to capitalize letters or finish your thoughts in complete sentance structure. I don't claim to spell correctly or have perfect grammer, but I do attempt to write in correct english so that other people can understand what I am saying. It would be the same if you just mumbled for a while, as we don't know what you mean. If you doubt me, look back at some of your posts and read them back out loud.



This would be where Tony's question comes into to play. There is no fact here. Obama doesn't own any part of chrysler. You also failed to provide any evidence as Tony asked.



Ok, you may not feel sorry for people who lost their homes to ARM and neither do I. It was their fault, not the governement's. Now if you are saying that I can blame the governement for derregulating the mortgage industry, doesn't that mean you are for more regulation (more government intervention)?



What is the relevance of this? Does the government do things on credit? Sure. Does that mean people can buy everything they want on credit and not have to pay it back? I don't get your point at all here. The simple fact is that the owner of the dealership got what was coming to him and I don't feel sorry for him at all.

I will ask a final time, What do you think should have happened? When Chrysler filed for bankruptcy, what do you think is the proper course of action as it applies to this dealership in question?


here let me break it down for you so im not mumbling

1.wow so what i dont capitalize, usually im on and off here in a hurry, like tonight. And yes i do get it. I have worked in several dealers and ran a mack truck outfit. Read into exactly what the man is losing and you will understand. Have you ever dealt with auto warranty, parts supply, etc. Also last time i checked with chrysler filing for bankrupty dealers are supposed to honor warranties and service agreements, which in this case if the guy's "franchise" is gone then he cannot do that. also he cannot sell his inventory as a "new" car b/c the franchise is gone, so deduct used value which as you know the biggest hit is when you buy a new car and there you have it. it's pretty black and white in the article.

2. don't think the gov't has a stake in GM, wrong read this.
http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20090526-714684.html

put that in your pipe and smoke it.

3. regulation on idiotic loan ideas(like ARM's) should have been nipped in the butt. i prefer less gov't, but when someone makes large sums of $$ on shitty loans and 50% of the time they lied to the client and put them in an arm without knowing is bad. but what most consumers don't know is you can walk away from the closing table. and don't say this did not happen i can give you several examples of bait and switch.

4. you mentioned the guy owed a lot of $$ and you do not feel sorry for him losing his business, what i pointed out is, what's our national debt again.

hang on i'll quote you--What is the relevance of this? Does the government do things on credit? Sure. Does that mean people can buy everything they want on credit and not have to pay it back? I don't get your point at all here. The simple fact is that the owner of the dealership got what was coming to him and I don't feel sorry for him at all.----

well the point is chrysler borrowed a bunch of our taxpayer $$ that we did not have to begin with and is not liable at paying it back. hey let's throw $$ at AIG, BANKS, you name it lets borrow borrow borrow till china says no more bond buying. it's the pot calling the kettle black.


5. lastly i do not think the man should have his dealership taken away and given to somebody else. period. think of it as starting your own company one day being kicked out by the board commitee. chrysler should file BK like everyone else, restructure and PAY BACK THE TAX $$ GIVEN TO THEM. watch for an assembly plant in south america for this brand soon.

[preferredduck]

If McDonalds stops supplying their franchises with Big Macs due to the fact that the McDonalds corporation is losing money on every big mac sold that is simply restructuring which is what GM and Chrysler are doing.. sorry, thats capitalism.

You know whats funny about that letter? Because I know this whole thing started with someone listening to Hannity or Boortz (Heard it on Boortz myself before reading it here) the first line;



If that was an employee writing about their job Boortz would have said it wasn't your job in the first place and that people have this false sense of entitlement. Well you know what? Those cars belong to Chrysler.. not the franchisee. Do you think each individual McDonalds owns the big mac or the McDonalds corporation? Chrysler is restructuring because their business is not profitable, the guy was going to lose the Chrysler products one way or another.. with or without the current administration.

And again I reiterate, Chrysler didn't crumble in a matter of months, this has been years in the making. A lot of you need to go back and take fundamental economics. The free market doesn't always mean successful business.


sadly this brand has been tanking for years. at least the last 15yrs or so.

[joecoolfreak]

here let me break it down for you so im not mumbling


1.wow so what i dont capitalize, usually im on and off here in a hurry, like tonight. And yes i do get it. I have worked in several dealers and ran a mack truck outfit. Read into exactly what the man is losing and you will understand. Have you ever dealt with auto warranty, parts supply, etc. Also last time i checked with chrysler filing for bankrupty dealers are supposed to honor warranties and service agreements, which in this case if the guy's "franchise" is gone then he cannot do that. also he cannot sell his inventory as a "new" car b/c the franchise is gone, so deduct used value which as you know the biggest hit is when you buy a new car and there you have it. it's pretty black and white in the article.
I have dealt with all of those, so I do understand. Correct, he cannot honor warranties. He is not a chrysler dealer anymore. He rented the ability to call himself that and can't anymore. His inventory is worth less, yes, that is the point. He knew the risk and gambled. He lost and was wrong. That's the way life goes. You are not entitled to a successful business and he didn't earn it.


2. don't think the gov't has a stake in GM, wrong read this.
http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20090526-714684.html

put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Where did GM come into this? We are talking about Chrysler. You do know the difference right? YOU stated that Obama owned 80% of Chrysler. Now backup that smoke. =-)


3. regulation on idiotic loan ideas(like ARM's) should have been nipped in the butt. i prefer less gov't, but when someone makes large sums of $$ on shitty loans and 50% of the time they lied to the client and put them in an arm without knowing is bad. but what most consumers don't know is you can walk away from the closing table. and don't say this did not happen i can give you several examples of bait and switch. Every consumer knows that you have a right to walk away from the table. Every consumer knows that they should read the contract before signing. Any customer that doesn't know those two things, deserves to be screwed for doing it without supervision from a smarter person. No one signed an ARM without knowing about it. They just all thought that they were getting a deal that was too good to be true and guess what, it was. Still no sympathy. You prefer less government, but more regulation on personal stupidity. I am not followint the logic.


4. you mentioned the guy owed a lot of $$ and you do not feel sorry for him losing his business, what i pointed out is, what's our national debt again.
Again, what is the point? I am aware that we have a national debt. I still don't see it's relevance. I have a credit card too? Should this be a point in my arguement? He lost his business because he is a bad businessman. That simple. Get it yet?

hang on i'll quote you--What is the relevance of this? Does the government do things on credit? Sure. Does that mean people can buy everything they want on credit and not have to pay it back? I don't get your point at all here. The simple fact is that the owner of the dealership got what was coming to him and I don't feel sorry for him at all.----


well the point is chrysler borrowed a bunch of our taxpayer $$ that we did not have to begin with and is not liable at paying it back. hey let's throw $$ at AIG, BANKS, you name it lets borrow borrow borrow till china says no more bond buying. it's the pot calling the kettle black.
Again, not sure where a point might be found here. What pot is calling what kettle here?



5. lastly i do not think the man should have his dealership taken away and given to somebody else. period. think of it as starting your own company one day being kicked out by the board commitee. chrysler should file BK like everyone else, restructure and PAY BACK THE TAX $$ GIVEN TO THEM. watch for an assembly plant in south america for this brand soon.

His dealership isn't being taken away for the last time. His contract with Chrysler ( who doesn't have to honor ANY contracts ) is being disolved. Since you still haven't figured this out ( See Tony's last few posts ), he signed a contract that allowed him to borrow the Chrysler name and privilages. There isn't any ownership here. When Chrysler files for bankrupcy, their contracts are voided. They restructure (offer some of the dealerships back the contract, but only a few select profitable ones so they don't continue losing money) like they did. What you describe as what should happen, is happening. Please explain what part of the process should ensure this guy gets a new contract with Chrysler and how that wouldn't be more government involvement?

[preferredduck]

Where did GM come into this? We are talking about Chrysler. You do know the difference right? YOU stated that Obama owned 80% of Chrysler. Now backup that smoke. =-)




do a little research on the investment comany that owns chrysler and you will also see they have a stake in GM, GMAC financing, which includes cars, mortages, etc. I saw tony's post about the franchise and contracts that had to have been signed. there is no safe bet on any business venture but doesn't a franchise cost a chunk of change, and wouldn't that make almost every dealer out there a franchise.


Every consumer knows that you have a right to walk away from the table. Every consumer knows that they should read the contract before signing. Any customer that doesn't know those two things, deserves to be screwed for doing it without supervision from a smarter person. No one signed an ARM without knowing about it. They just all thought that they were getting a deal that was too good to be true and guess what, it was. Still no sympathy. You prefer less government, but more regulation on personal stupidity. I am not followint the logic.

i don't think there should be regulation on personal stupidity, but making it harder for someone to become a loan officer would be a good start, i mean you are in complete control of someone's future and YOU determine your comission. Once you get some people's trust they may not check to see if the good faith estimate matches what is at closing, or the many cases of fraud popping up there was alot of foul play involved. did you know the Ex-CEO of countrywide,"the leader in subprime BS" now has a company that makes tons of money off the mess that he caused.


4. you mentioned the guy owed a lot of $$ and you do not feel sorry for him losing his business, what i pointed out is, what's our national debt again.


Again, what is the point? I am aware that we have a national debt. I still don't see it's relevance. I have a credit card too? Should this be a point in my arguement? He lost his business because he is a bad businessman. That simple. Get it yet?

hang on i'll quote you--What is the relevance of this? Does the government do things on credit? Sure. Does that mean people can buy everything they want on credit and not have to pay it back? I don't get your point at all here. The simple fact is that the owner of the dealership got what was coming to him and I don't feel sorry for him at all.----.

the point is you stated earlier you DO NOT FEEL SORRY FOR SOMEONE OVEREXTENDING THEMSELVES AND LOSING EVERYTHING, whether it be personal or business and i am stating the fact that our WHOLE COUNTRY AND GOV'T is over extended on credit and the people, yes you and me have to pay back the debt, unless we just say "hey we don't wanna pay anymore". read up on the federal reserve, it's the whole system, not just a homeowner and a guy who lost his career b/c of poor management.

so the moral of the story is you call him a bad businessman. well i call the crooks at the top bad businessmen. if i sank my whole life into something and could possibly loose everything i own for a company i would be pretty pissed. example i worked for a company that had to do some door to door debt collections, and let's just say when i had to shell out more $$ on gas for the company than i was getting paid i jumped ship. just because this guy may not have been selling many cars does not mean he was not making profit. the service dept. and parts is the bread nad butter at a dealer.

one more point, if the taxpayers(dealer owner) bailed out these companies with trillions of dollars then why should the people paying back the debt get screwed. if i were him i would never want to pay taxes again, and after watching company fail after fail some of which were helped i would not want to pay taxes either and if i ever can i will stop doing so.

[joecoolfreak]

Ok, you are still missing the point. This discussion is very simple. Should the owner of the dealership be pissed? Sure, he should be pissed at himself. His demise is a direct result of the free market or pure capitalism. Was he profitiable? Maybe. Did that profit come from fixing crappy cars that he sold? Most likely. Did that money he was making also make money for Chrysler? Nope, it was a drain on them. Did they go out of business because of it? Sure. Does that mean he loses his contract with them that he paid a lot of money for? Yup. Is that fair? Nope. Is that capitalism? Absolutely.

The free market is not fair. Just because you make money, doesn't mean you get to stay in business. Capitalism at it's purest is pretty damn rough. I find it funny as hell that all of you "conservatives" scream free market until YOU suddenly head for more government regulation or intervention when you see the results.

Duck....stop getting hung up on credit and debt. It is irrelevant to the conversation. That is a whole other bag of worms. That being said, there is no option not to pay our national debt or stop paying taxes. We as a country acquired that debt whether you like it or not, and our government and it's people can't handle what happens when the government has do default or file for bankruptcy. I have personally seen and lived what it is like to be in a third world country and we just can't handle that as a people right now.

[preferredduck]

Ok, you are still missing the point. This discussion is very simple. Should the owner of the dealership be pissed? Sure, he should be pissed at himself. His demise is a direct result of the free market or pure capitalism. Was he profitiable? Maybe. Did that profit come from fixing crappy cars that he sold? Most likely. Did that money he was making also make money for Chrysler? Nope, it was a drain on them. Did they go out of business because of it? Sure. Does that mean he loses his contract with them that he paid a lot of money for? Yup. Is that fair? Nope. Is that capitalism? Absolutely.

The free market is not fair. Just because you make money, doesn't mean you get to stay in business. Capitalism at it's purest is pretty damn rough. I find it funny as hell that all of you "conservatives" scream free market until YOU suddenly head for more government regulation or intervention when you see the results.

Duck....stop getting hung up on credit and debt. It is irrelevant to the conversation. That is a whole other bag of worms. That being said, there is no option not to pay our national debt or stop paying taxes. We as a country acquired that debt whether you like it or not, and our government and it's people can't handle what happens when the government has do default or file for bankruptcy. I have personally seen and lived what it is like to be in a third world country and we just can't handle that as a people right now.

1st i am not conservative, check my other threads. 2nd how does chrysler lose $ on a car dealership, rebates maybe but i doubt it. 3rd credit and debt have alot to do with this whole economic mess, and even this man's inventory is on credit like all other dealers. and 4th what third world country did you live in? i'm very curious.

you are right the people in this country would not know what to do if the gov't went BK. just think those poor little 24 yr and younger females in LA that would freak out b/c paris is no longer on the tv and the power is out and they have to poop in the yard. it's gonna happen soon b/c mr obama is following FDR's roadmap to success, and if you do some reasearch you will find FDR's plan failed, it was WW2 that brought us back.

[tony]

1st i am not conservative, check my other threads. 2nd how does chrysler lose $ on a car dealership, rebates maybe but i doubt it.

They lose money on the product not the dealership. If the cost of the production on the 300c is costing the company it doesn't matter how much the dealership is making. Production gets cut and distribution is consolidated (i.e, close dealerships)

[Total_Blender]

No sympathy for this guy. He should have known the risks associated with the franchise system.

He should have seen the serious lack of r&d that happened to Chrysler after the Daimler takeover, combined with the fact that Chrysler products required major factory incentives for people to buy them, and decided to sell a product people actually want.

No where in his letter does it say that the cars he sells won't have warranty coverage. It just says that his facility cannot perform warranty service. So people could buy from him and get service from other dealers in the area. Since these are new and untitled vehicles, the manufacturer is bound to he warranty wherever they are sold.

He could sell the vehicles at cost to other dealers in the area, or even auction them off if it came down to it.

He will be keeping his real estate, his facilities, and his staff. and he still has an Isuzu franchise. while Isuzu is not a particularly profitable franchise to have, it might pay his light bill.

And many people go to the dealers for service and maintainence after their warranties expire. They are not taking his tech's knowledge or their tools. So he still has a repair business as well.

The bottom line here is that this guy is going to stay in business, just not the Chrysler business. He will probably be selling Korean automobiles a year from now with no harm done.:goodjob:

[BanginJimmy]

No sympathy for this guy. He should have known the risks associated with the franchise system.

He should have seen the serious lack of r&d that happened to Chrysler after the Daimler takeover, combined with the fact that Chrysler products required major factory incentives for people to buy them, and decided to sell a product people actually want.

I agree with all of this. During the 80's all American manufacturers fell into this same trap and it is taking a VERY long time to recover from it. I do think the newer lines of Dodge sports cars and the Ram are enough to pull them through though.


No where in his letter does it say that the cars he sells won't have warranty coverage. It just says that his facility cannot perform warranty service.

He is also losing the money on his parts supply that Chrysler required him to keep on hand.



So people could buy from him and get service from other dealers in the area. Since these are new and untitled vehicles, the manufacturer is bound to he warranty wherever they are sold.

Wrong, as soon as his franchise contract ends, any vehicle on his lot cannot be sold as new, whether they are or not. This means they will immediately suffer the depreciation of a "used" car. It is also up to Chrysler if they want to service them as new cars. They are not required to service vehicles purchased from an unaffiliated dealership. 3 years, 36k miles only applies to authorized dealer sales.


He could sell the vehicles at cost to other dealers in the area, or even auction them off if it came down to it.

He will be keeping his real estate, his facilities, and his staff. and he still has an Isuzu franchise. while Isuzu is not a particularly profitable franchise to have, it might pay his light bill.

All true, but he could realistically take a HUGE hit selling the cars on the lot.


And many people go to the dealers for service and maintainence after their warranties expire. They are not taking his tech's knowledge or their tools. So he still has a repair business as well.

Considering the fact that he does have all of the factory manuals and factory trained people he might even be able to steal non-warranty repair business from dealerships. Then again, he wont be able to make any money on it because he will not get dealer prices on parts.


The bottom line here is that this guy is going to stay in business, just not the Chrysler business. He will probably be selling Korean automobiles a year from now with no harm done.:goodjob:

probably a good possibility as the article describes him as someone the community trusts. He may be able to keep some of his old customers with a new sign on the window.





I will mention that most of the people that are OK with this, would be blowing their top if Bush was the one in the oval orifice when this went down. Most of you will simply agree with anything Obama does just because he is Obama.

[preferredduck]

No sympathy for this guy. He should have known the risks associated with the franchise system.

He should have seen the serious lack of r&d that happened to Chrysler after the Daimler takeover, combined with the fact that Chrysler products required major factory incentives for people to buy them, and decided to sell a product people actually want.

No where in his letter does it say that the cars he sells won't have warranty coverage. It just says that his facility cannot perform warranty service. So people could buy from him and get service from other dealers in the area. Since these are new and untitled vehicles, the manufacturer is bound to he warranty wherever they are sold.

He could sell the vehicles at cost to other dealers in the area, or even auction them off if it came down to it.

He will be keeping his real estate, his facilities, and his staff. and he still has an Isuzu franchise. while Isuzu is not a particularly profitable franchise to have, it might pay his light bill.

And many people go to the dealers for service and maintainence after their warranties expire. They are not taking his tech's knowledge or their tools. So he still has a repair business as well.

The bottom line here is that this guy is going to stay in business, just not the Chrysler business. He will probably be selling Korean automobiles a year from now with no harm done.:goodjob:

considering chrysler said "hey remodel your building" required a massive loan to be taken out at suntrust bank, he will prob not own the land or building much longer.

it will be a commercial foreclosure, and that has just begun. wait til it reaches the level of the housing market then we are screwed. if you don't think this will happen, look around at all the retail space available at the moment, it's going to get worse b/c who can afford to start a business since 80% of americans lost half of their money in their 401k's etc.

[Vteckidd]

my .02

1) Chrysler as a whole has NOT been profitable. Anyone owning a Chrysler Franchise has known for a long time, the company, as a whole, is not doing well and has not done well for A LONG TIM.

2) If the Main company isnt doing well, it is still possible for SMALLER franchises/dealers to do well/profit. Look at Starbucks. There were 5000 stores nationwide 3 years ago, now they are drawing down to somewhere half that number because they overexpanded. People PAID for those franchises, and im sure they are losing them now even if they are profitable.

3) If the MAIN company goes out of business, then your franchise is still worth nothing, so you are kinda doomed either way. Lets say this guy gets to keep the Franchise, and Chrysler goes under anyway, awesome, your inventory is worth even less now an you are right back where you started.

4) If he did major renovations in the last 2 years or sooner, he was an idiot. the car companies have been way out of money for A LONG TIME. Why put money into a dieing breed? I mean i understand HE was profitable, but that means jack shit if the parent company is going down.

5) Franchise people know the risks when they buy in. You can be making a million dollars a day, but if the parent company is losing 2million a day, you are not going to survive, PERIOD. Thats the risk.


The only thing i do not like about this, is that Obama is LETTING chrysler take this guys franchise rights away and give them to someone else "cost free". That is not right. Some sort of compensation should be paid at the minimum. But the problem is Chrysler is broke, so.............

Something else isnt making sense, i highly doubt chrysler is going to stick him with $3,000,000 in inventory and move on and say sorry. I am willing to bet money that the "new franchise" owner will prob end up buying this guys inventory in some form or fashion. Im sure there is more to this story that is not being revealed.

If Obama sits back and lets Chrysler stick it to this guy in those terms, then hes majorly fucked up a small business. You cant penalize a guy for doing well.

The FRANCHISE risks are ASSUMED by everyone, but the Govt should not have a hand in "who stays and who goes".

But to be honest, its all garbage and wrong cause we are in bed with the auto makers whether you like it or not. No turning back now.

[preferredduck]

my .02

1) Chrysler as a whole has NOT been profitable. Anyone owning a Chrysler Franchise has known for a long time, the company, as a whole, is not doing well and has not done well for A LONG TIM.

2) If the Main company isnt doing well, it is still possible for SMALLER franchises/dealers to do well/profit. Look at Starbucks. There were 5000 stores nationwide 3 years ago, now they are drawing down to somewhere half that number because they overexpanded. People PAID for those franchises, and im sure they are losing them now even if they are profitable.

3) If the MAIN company goes out of business, then your franchise is still worth nothing, so you are kinda doomed either way. Lets say this guy gets to keep the Franchise, and Chrysler goes under anyway, awesome, your inventory is worth even less now an you are right back where you started.

4) If he did major renovations in the last 2 years or sooner, he was an idiot. the car companies have been way out of money for A LONG TIME. Why put money into a dieing breed? I mean i understand HE was profitable, but that means jack shit if the parent company is going down.

5) Franchise people know the risks when they buy in. You can be making a million dollars a day, but if the parent company is losing 2million a day, you are not going to survive, PERIOD. Thats the risk.


The only thing i do not like about this, is that Obama is LETTING chrysler take this guys franchise rights away and give them to someone else "cost free". That is not right. Some sort of compensation should be paid at the minimum. But the problem is Chrysler is broke, so.............

Something else isnt making sense, i highly doubt chrysler is going to stick him with $3,000,000 in inventory and move on and say sorry. I am willing to bet money that the "new franchise" owner will prob end up buying this guys inventory in some form or fashion. Im sure there is more to this story that is not being revealed.

If Obama sits back and lets Chrysler stick it to this guy in those terms, then hes majorly fucked up a small business. You cant penalize a guy for doing well.

The FRANCHISE risks are ASSUMED by everyone, but the Govt should not have a hand in "who stays and who goes".

But to be honest, its all garbage and wrong cause we are in bed with the auto makers whether you like it or not. No turning back now.


amen for pointing out the fact that someone else is getting the franchise for free, it's prob one of obama's friends. lol. most dealers, including ford went on remodeling sprees back in 02-03 so he prob didn't do it recently. but i can say it costs a lot of $$ to remodel, i ran this guys service dept when he remolded for mack trucks
http://www.gainesvilletruckcenter.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=15&Itemid=30

that is just the parts room

his inventory will prob go to the new owner at little to no cost to the new owner.

service is where the $$ is. even at the mack truck dealer we sold more parts than nextran which has 20 dealers combined and we made most of our money in the service dept. only time we lost $ was excessive labor on warranty jobs and that was due to a crowded shop counter in the mornings while they were trying to get the deliveries out.

but as you pointed out chrysler is broke and has been heading for disaster for a long time so the only thing this guy can really do is service/warranty work.

seriously everyone look into the company who owns chrysler and see how much af a stake they have in GM and
GMAC financing.

[josh green]

Joecool, your subway comparison is not very good. Food franchise have very little overhead compaired to cars. Food is something that everyone has to have, new cars are not. Food isnt something that you as a consumer more than likely have to finance, nor is it a wear item that requres maintaining. What has killed his business is the fact that Chrysler will not warranty his new cars. He "could" sell them and recoup the loan for his inventory, but what consumer will buy a car that the manufacturer will not warranty in any way? Hardly any dealership actually "own" the cars that they sell. Not to mention the parts that he has in house that may or may not be paid for that are now almost worthless. His dealership not being able to do warranty work on new cars means that the consumer would have to pay out of pocket for any work/parts needed.
His renovation was required by Chrysler to maintain a dealer, this isnt uncommon it has happened to 3 dealerships here where I live (honda, Toyota, Nissan). His debt for the renovation was so that he could maintain being a profitable business. This really sucks for the guy, especially since the Dodge, Chrysler, Jeep dealership here is remaining open and the OWNER of the business made it public that he wished he was one of the ones that was shut down..... This guy is old, has lots of money and is tired of selling cars and hasnt been profitable in the last few years. Where is the logic in that? Why would Chrysler shut down a dealer that was actually doing well (for the owner and Chrysler) and leave open a dealership that is willing to fold and isnt helping Chrysler as a company?

[stillaneon]

1st i am not conservative, check my other threads. 2nd how does chrysler lose $ on a car dealership, rebates maybe but i doubt it. 3rd credit and debt have alot to do with this whole economic mess, and even this man's inventory is on credit like all other dealers. and 4th what third world country did you live in? i'm very curious.

you are right the people in this country would not know what to do if the gov't went BK. just think those poor little 24 yr and younger females in LA that would freak out b/c paris is no longer on the tv and the power is out and they have to poop in the yard. it's gonna happen soon b/c mr obama is following FDR's roadmap to success, and if you do some reasearch you will find FDR's plan failed, it was WW2 that brought us back.

Anytime that you spend more money than you make you loose money :thinking:

So if you are shelling out money to pay for warranty work, but the dealership isn't selling enough cars to offset that investment, then you loose money.

You spend the money to make cars and ship them, it doesn't behoove you to have them sit on a lot.

[joecoolfreak]

Joecool, your subway comparison is not very good. Food franchise have very little overhead compaired to cars. Food is something that everyone has to have, new cars are not. Food isnt something that you as a consumer more than likely have to finance, nor is it a wear item that requres maintaining.
None of that makes it a bad analogy. He is a bad businessman and deserved to go under. It doesn't matter whether or not the franchise was food or cars. None of those points had anything to do with the comparison I was using.


What has killed his business is the fact that Chrysler will not warranty his new cars. He "could" sell them and recoup the loan for his inventory, but what consumer will buy a car that the manufacturer will not warranty in any way? Hardly any dealership actually "own" the cars that they sell. Not to mention the parts that he has in house that may or may not be paid for that are now almost worthless. His dealership not being able to do warranty work on new cars means that the consumer would have to pay out of pocket for any work/parts needed.
No, what killed his business is the fact that he chose to rely on Chrysler as his business model. That was a bad choice and he is paying the consequence. Simple as that.


His renovation was required by Chrysler to maintain a dealer, this isnt uncommon it has happened to 3 dealerships here where I live (honda, Toyota, Nissan). His debt for the renovation was so that he could maintain being a profitable business.

That would have been a great opportunity for him to ditch a dying product and start selling something profitable with a future. He didn't do that, so he gets what he deserves.


This really sucks for the guy, especially since the Dodge, Chrysler, Jeep dealership here is remaining open and the OWNER of the business made it public that he wished he was one of the ones that was shut down..... This guy is old, has lots of money and is tired of selling cars and hasnt been profitable in the last few years. Where is the logic in that? Why would Chrysler shut down a dealer that was actually doing well (for the owner and Chrysler) and leave open a dealership that is willing to fold and isnt helping Chrysler as a company?

Exactly, why would Chrysler choose to keep a unprofitable dealer open and close a "profitable" one?. They wouldn't. Simple. As I provided in my earlier statements, the article I showed clearly stated why dealerships were losing their contracts. This dealer in question simply isn't telling the whole story.

What everyone seems to be missing here is that the entire process here is simple free market capitalism. IF the dealer in question from the OP statement really was doing well and really was a good businessman, he wouldn't be going bankrupt. He made poor decisions, failed to plan for the future, and didn't diversify. He deserves to lose his business and I don't feel sorry for him. This is capitalism at it's finest, plain and simple. All of you that are crying, have yet to answer one simple question: What should have been done differently? Does Chrysler have the right to void their franchise agreements when they file? Do you want the government to come in and "make" Chrysler keep all "profitible" dealerships? What should have happened in THIS situation?