RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:FAF annuals Define grow...
It allows the company to grow the 'brand' by opening more stores.
The corporate owned route will 'grow' much faster once anyone becomes revenue positive. By contrast, we only receive 5% top line revenue from franchises. So we'll need 20 franchise stores to equal 1 corporate store, to earn that same ammount of money (once they're generating it positively). FAF has what, 45 corporate stores open and running (until they close the 3 in Alberta to find more profitable locations). So by that standard to make the same ammount of money they do, we need 900 franchise stores. Remove 20 for every corporate store we own. Which Jesse will know more on that number. I think its what, 10 now? So to be compeditive with FAF on a profit level we need 900 - (10 x 20 = 200) = 700 stores.
Sure you're not incurring nearly the same costs on franchise locations as corporately owned ones, but those true numbers remain to prove themselves.
Now the true 'key point' is once they finally get off their butts and come out with some real branded products (other than bamboo shirts and lighters) they'll be able to sell those to the franchise stores to sell, and start generating some good revenue off that... That being said theres zero barrier to entry, so FAF or META or any of them could just as easily start doing the same thing.
The benefit to franchise is that there should be less volatility and less risk to the company if a location is doing poor numbers. Its simply less of that 5% rather than retaining 100% of the costs of operation.
I'm not sure if you've noticed but we've been steady diluting the last month or so by way of private placements (two to the UK private firm) and one to Brett (the first dragon), then he went on to buy out the LP's ownership (luckily for us). Then more by giving Manjt a pile of options along with management and some of the store stakeholders. (opions get added to the overall share float). So yes, we've been diluting.