Multi Location gyms acting like one big gym, good or bad?

Welcome to our Cheerleading Community

Members see FEWER ads... join today!

King

Is all about that bass
Staff member
FBOD:LLFB
Dec 4, 2009
14,108
19,303
SOO there is no good timing for anything on this board, so I don't mind asking this now anyway.

Someone said to me the other day that multi location gyms should not be able to act and share kids like a single location.

Why it should be allowed:
-it is all the same program, so why shouldn't they be able to?
-there is less reason to go an open another gym, why harm gyms that are successful


Why it shouldn't be allowed:
-in theory one gym could have 40 locations and share kids through to make whatever team is needed (Premier Gyms)
-Worlds Rosters get a little cloudy
-shouldnt be able to buy a gym mid season and use their kids with your kids

Thoughts and opinions?
 
I personally don't have a problem with multi-location gyms using athletes from each location to form their teams. For me, as long as the athletes were active all stars at one of their locations, they should be allowed to use them on any team at any location. HOWEVER, I am not a fan of crossovers used in excess. So, if we could make the rule to be the same as NCA (5 crossovers per gym) and multi locations were all considered one gym, then I am good with that. BUT, I don't think we can say multi location gyms can combine their athletes for competitions, but then also say my location in such-in-such city is a small gym and they are going to compete in the small gym division. Does that make sense? So either we have ONE gym with multiple locations or we have separate gyms that cannot use each other's athletes. Am I making any sense??
 
  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #3
Yes. So what constitutes a multi location gym?

Does premier get to trade all its gyms kids legally?

What can stop a gym from 'partnering up' with one across town and trading athletes?
 
Isn't Premier like a franchise? If that is the case, they should not share athletes. Otherwise, I think its perfectly acceptable to share athletes from the same organization at different locations.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #5
Isn't Premier like a franchise? If that is the case, they should not share athletes. Otherwise, I think its perfectly acceptable to share athletes from the same organization at different locations.

Isn't ACE a franchise? What is the difference?

(I ain't hatin'. I'm just askin')
 
  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #7
No difference. I think if they are owned by different people, than they should be considered as a separate gym. I just used premier because they were mentioned.

So is your definition that if it has one owner then it is part of one gym?

I am not trying to pick you apart, just I was curious where the grey is. Could I technically go around Atlanta handing out 'Stingray' signs to all the Atlanta gyms, say we are part of one conglomerate, and all use the same kids?
 
I if I have any financial interest in the gym at all, they I would be considered a part owner. I am speaking only to gyms who have the same name (ACE, premier, stingrays, etc), but are owned by different people. I don't feel like I am being picked apart. I think it is fairly simple.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #9
Own the location or own what? Aren't all Premier gyms owned by Varsity and managed by different people?
 
I'll let you all figure out what is the correct definition of multiple gyms but for sake of argument I am speaking of 1 gym name, owned by 1 gym owner, with locations in relatively close proximity to each other.

What I like is that it def broadens the base for talent and creates a brand name throughout many different areas.

What I don't like is when locations are opened purely for pulling the local athletes to another location. In other words there is no real intention of having a succesful permanent gym in the new location but is used to find the local level 5 talent and pull them to another area.

Secondly, somone mentioned this to me a few days ago. You shouldn't be able to be a multi location gym that shares talent throughout the organization and then claim small gym division status at a competion.
 
I'll let you all figure out what is the correct definition of multiple gyms but for sake of argument I am speaking of 1 gym name, owned by 1 gym owner, with locations in relatively close proximity to each other.

What I like is that it def broadens the base for talent and creates a brand name throughout many different areas.

What I don't like is when locations are opened purely for pulling the local athletes to another location. In other words there is no real intention of having a succesful permanent gym in the new location but is used to find the local level 5 talent and pull them to another area.

Secondly, somone mentioned this to me a few days ago. You shouldn't be able to be a multi location gym that shares talent throughout the organization and then claim small gym division status at a competion.

I said this exact same thing in my response. I agree 100%. You shouldn't be able to have your cake and eat it, too.
 
This may be totally pointless, but I'm just thinking of some fast food franchises, Sonic for example, they are all owned by separate people, but sell the same exact food, have the same employee outfits, with few differences like...do they have a drive threw or not. They may own their own sonic, but the head corporation tells them what is required of them to calls themselves a sonic. I'm pretty sure they can trade employees too.

Just saying, I kind of relate this to cheer a little bit, but I don't know enough about these multigym locations to really relate it.
 
What you have to ask yourself, I think at least, is do these multi-location gyms file ONE tax return or does each gym file separately? Wouldn't that be the way to figure if they are truly one gym or multiple gyms under one name? If you use the Sonic example, each Sonic is required to file their own individual tax returns because each location is independently owned and operated. They, therefore, would NOT be able to share tax write-offs, etc. Am I right or am I totally wrong on this??
 
Back