AS A member of Advantage not intending to take up the franchise offer, Ihave been worried by the intention that the director of the new franchised company should continue to act for the non-franchised members, as a conflict of interest is likely.
I had not expected this would happen so soon, butsee from the franchise agreement that the new franchise company is to adopt the Advantage trading name, with no apparent disclosure that it is different from the original Advantage Travel Association.
In these circumstances, it may seem dangerous for non-franchised Advantage members to continue to use the Advantage name in case they are assumed to be members of the franchised operation. But they have chosen not to be involved, maybe because they fear the public perception of its ILGassociation.
Is the effect of this that the non-franchised members are sustaining a loss for which they appear to be receiving no compensation?
Is there a need for an informal action group of non-franchised members to protect the interests of these members?
Why should they be forced out of their association, particularly when they are likely to be close to a majority?
A further disadvantaged Advantage member