3 ms·

I can't confirm that? Can you provide another source? Because I agree - that would dramatically change the narrative of the movie. (Even still, I'm not convince

by wrsh07 9y ago

I can't confirm that? Can you provide another source? Because I agree - that would dramatically change the narrative of the movie. (Even still, I'm not convinced that it would make Ray a particularly empathetic character) Searching, the first three links I get are this (the op), a quora answer that references this, and the below link: http://www.historyvshollywood.com/reelfaces/founder/ http://www.historyvshollywood.com/reelfaces/founder/ > Did Ray Kroc renege on his handshake deal to pay the McDonald brothers a percentage of the revenue from the franchises? Yes. After the brothers refused to give Kroc the original restaurant, he supposedly cheated the brothers out of the 0.5 percent royalty agreement they had been getting, which would have been valued at $15 million a year by 1977 and as high as $305 million a year by 2012 (according to one estimate). In his book, Kroc wrote, "If they [the brothers] had played their cards right, that 0.5 percent would have made them unbelievably wealthy." Relatives of Richard and Maurice McDonald say that Maurice (Mac) was so distraught that it attributed to his eventual death from heart failure a decade later. -Daily Mail Online

tptacek 9y ago
That's the essential narrative Napoli is challenging, and in addition to the fact that she's a reputable journalist reporting the story, there's the fact that the counternarrative doesn't make sense, since 0.5% was what the McDonald brothers were getting prior to the buyout; if they were expected to continue getting that money after the buyout, what, exactly, would Ray Kroc have been buying?
- adventured 9y ago
  In that fictional premise, Kroc was buying the legally clean & clear right to do with the brand and inside of the restaurants as he saw fit, without having to fight with the brothers over every detail. The movie portrayed that as a key sticking point to Kroc being able to push his vision for McDonald's forward. For example, the powder milkshake battle, or the ability to pursue raising the fees on the franchisees at his own determining.
- wrsh07 9y ago
  Aha, good point. I wasn't convinced of her reputation from either this or quora, but, yes. I accept this as fact then.

by wrsh07 9y ago

tptacek 9y ago

That's the essential narrative Napoli is challenging, and in addition to the fact that she's a reputable journalist reporting the story, there's the fact that the counternarrative doesn't make sense, since 0.5% was what the McDonald brothers were getting prior to the buyout; if they were expected to continue getting that money after the buyout, what, exactly, would Ray Kroc have been buying?

adventured 9y ago
In that fictional premise, Kroc was buying the legally clean & clear right to do with the brand and inside of the restaurants as he saw fit, without having to fight with the brothers over every detail. The movie portrayed that as a key sticking point to Kroc being able to push his vision for McDonald's forward. For example, the powder milkshake battle, or the ability to pursue raising the fees on the franchisees at his own determining.
wrsh07 9y ago
Aha, good point. I wasn't convinced of her reputation from either this or quora, but, yes. I accept this as fact then.