3 ms·

I think more money is going to Taylor in recurring service revenue. But there were probably kickbacks to McDs when the use of this machine was mandated

• blamazon 3y ago
  Kick-back doesn't have to be a one time thing - my guess (unsubstantiated) is the contracts involved routinely time out, requiring more 'golf-course negotiations.'
  • ghostpepper 3y ago
    That would mean there should be even more evidence laying around, no?
    • blamazon 3y ago
      In theory yes, but in practice, I feel that the transferred value could be ambiguous and obfuscated, even intangible. I would be surprised if McDonald's doesn't have a world class general counsel and legal team that can get very creative. I readily acknowledge this is a cynically conspiratorial take with no evidential basis.
• gruez 3y ago
  >>This ice cream machine thing is, IMO, an obfuscated method of transferring more value from the ground level businesses to McD's corporate, via the Taylor machine vendor middleman. In other words, paying more rent. >But there were probably kickbacks to McDs when the use of this machine was mandated I see this being insinuated since day 1, but after 2 years of lawsuits no document has surfaced during discovery to support this claim. I realize absence of proof isn't proof of absence, but given how much this piece of evidence will help Kytch's case, if not in court of law then in the court of public opinion, I'm inclined to tentatively conclude no such malfeasance has occurred.
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]