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

[King]

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 constitutes a program? The physical location or the name on the uniform? I have never worked in a multi location place, so (possible ACEDAD) could enlighten us. Does it feel like everyone is ACE or those people are definitely ACE Birmingham and you can tell they are ACE Atlanta. Could the two new gyms feel like they are ACE gyms yet or does it take a while?

From an outsider looking in I feel like it is hard to reproduce the same gym at multiple spots. So I always think of it as location that makes a gym what it is.

 

[Mclovin]

Good point, King. Twist & Shout now has 3 locations. I can tell you that the two locations we had this past year had a very similar "look", however, no one at the MWC gym knew anyone from the Edmond gym for the most part. We didn't even attend all of the same competitions. Each gym has it's own booster club. We do, however, share employees and a couple of athletes. We now have a gym in Tulsa as well and I would imagine that will be very much along these same lines.

 

[marissa.d]

Does ACX count in this?
theres is three ACX gyms, but all are owned under one person who frequently visits each location but each gym has a "gym director".
All Acx teams (with exclusion of worlds or certain teams who go to NCA dallas), go to the same competitions and i find most of us know people from other gyms to be at least acquaintances (seeing as the gyms are over an hour apart each).
i feel like a family to all other ACX athletes whether they are from my gym or not

 

[Mclovin]

My opinion is that ACX has one owner, who frequents each gym, then that's one gym. Free to use crossovers, alternates, etc.

 

[cheerKT]

Being from ACX too (the original Columbia location) I was just about to post this. There have not been crossovers between locations as of yet (with the exception of coaches coming to Columbia to cheer open, etc) but it may arise for the first time this year with 3 different locations. Not to mention it's our first year with 2 level 5s coming out of 1 location. I would see this okay, as I would with any gym with multiple locations under 1 owner (Rockstar, CEA, etc). I've always felt like one big gym. When it starts to branch out into different owners and franchises is when I get a little iffy in regards to things like crossovers and Worlds alternates.

 

[Aw.Work.]

I'm from celebrity/ Ece and we have 2 main locations, CT and ma (used to be NH). Our name 'celebrity' or 'east celebrity elite' now is owned by the owners in the ma/NH location I believe but the gyms are owned by seperate people... I think the CT owners pay to use the name. We had some cross overs from gym to gym occasionally like for worlds on our dance team this year and in 07. Fame in 07 had a couple NH athletes on it. And coed last year had a girl from CT on it. We also have a couple coaches who work at both gyms. So what would this be considered as? Since the name is owned by 4 or however many people but the gyms are owned seperately?

 

[Mclovin]

I'm from celebrity/ Ece and we have 2 main locations, CT and ma (used to be NH). Our name 'celebrity' or 'east celebrity elite' now is owned by the owners in the ma/NH location I believe but the gyms are owned by seperate people... I think the CT owners pay to use the name. We had some cross overs from gym to gym occasionally like for worlds on our dance team this year and in 07. Fame in 07 had a couple NH athletes on it. And coed last year had a girl from CT on it. We also have a couple coaches who work at both gyms. So what would this be considered as? Since the name is owned by 4 or however many people but the gyms are owned seperately?

I guess I would see that as more like a franchise, in which case I would say probably NOT one gym. However, I really don't care how this type of rule is defined, as long as you can't claim multiple gyms as one for the use of crossovers/worlds subs and alternates but then turn around and try to claim each gym is a separate entity and therefore, some of them are small gym. It's all or nothing, IMO.

 

[ACEDAD]

What constitutes a program? The physical location or the name on the uniform? I have never worked in a multi location place, so (possible ACEDAD) could enlighten us. Does it feel like everyone is ACE or those people are definitely ACE Birmingham and you can tell they are ACE Atlanta. Could the two new gyms feel like they are ACE gyms yet or does it take a while?

From an outsider looking in I feel like it is hard to reproduce the same gym at multiple spots. So I always think of it as location that makes a gym what it is.

I can't say for sure that every person feels 100% part of ACE from day 1, but I would say more do than don't. Happy and the coaches help the whole thing along. Most of the training and planning are done with all the coaches together and I think that goes a long way. Any time an entity is larger, the feelings and interaction aren't going to be the same. I'm sure that Stingrays today isn't as tightly knit as Stingrays 5 years ago.

Bigger is different. But different isn't worse.

 

[King]

I can't say for sure that every person feels 100% part of ACE from day 1, but I would say more do than don't. Happy and the coaches help the whole thing along. Most of the training and planning are done with all the coaches together and I think that goes a long way. Any time an entity is larger, the feelings and interaction aren't going to be the same. I'm sure that Stingrays today isn't as tightly knit as Stingrays 5 years ago.

Bigger is different. But different isn't worse.

So true. I only started working there four years ago and I'm pretty much the glue that holds that place together. (anyone know how to use the sarcasm mark on this website?)

 

[tumbleyoda]

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.

IIRC we have been talking about this since the prox days. It makes little sense to have multi locations for the purposes of marketing, branding, dominance and drafting of athletes but then to all of a sudden be a small gym when it is convienent. I can see one or the other but not claiming both positions at the same time. This is in the 1 owner model and not the franchise model as the abpove poster referenced. If there is sharing of athletes you should have to include the total membership of the gym you are pulling from into your actual gym size.

Question: Gym A is the main gym so to speak. There are 2 satellite gyms B and C. Do these gyms who use this model for drawing the best talent towards their higher level teams freely crossover in the lower levels as well from gym to gym? So while we see and know they cross B and C to A, do they cross A to B and or C as well? Do they cross gym to gym in level 2 as well as level 5? Does the crossing only go one direction towards one gym? This is not an argument for or against crossovers so please lets not go there with this. This is just trying to fully grasp the flow of athletes in these types of gyms for the purposes of this thread only. If the flow of athletes only goes in one direction then what are the benefits other than immediate name recognition and what that brings for gym B or C to go with such an arrangement?

 

[Mclovin]

Another question?? I'll use Twist & Shout as an example. We now have 3 locations. Say our main location (Edmond) wanted to use athletes from MWC but not Tulsa. We are an entity with three locations, one owner. Can we say we are one gym for the sake of using crossovers from MWC but then in turn say the Tulsa location is a small gym because we didn't use any athletes from that location?? Or would saying we are one gym lump all locations into that classification? My opinion is that it's all or nothing. We either claim each location as a separate gym and make the athletes from those gyms stay put and allow the smaller gyms to claim small gym status, or we combine all locations into one gym, allowing us to use crossovers from each location, but forcing the two smaller gyms to claim large gym status. What are your thoughts??

 

[King]

Another question?? I'll use Twist & Shout as an example. We now have 3 locations. Say our main location (Edmond) wanted to use athletes from MWC but not Tulsa. We are an entity with three locations, one owner. Can we say we are one gym for the sake of using crossovers from MWC but then in turn say the Tulsa location is a small gym because we didn't use any athletes from that location?? Or would saying we are one gym lump all locations into that classification? My opinion is that it's all or nothing. We either claim each location as a separate gym and make the athletes from those gyms stay put and allow the smaller gyms to claim small gym status, or we combine all locations into one gym, allowing us to use crossovers from each location, but forcing the two smaller gyms to claim large gym status. What are your thoughts??

i think its too murky. personally i think the most manageable and fairest way is to do it is say a physical gym is a physical gym. you represent that one single location. besides worlds (which those rules gotta get fixed anyway) i dont see that having much impact.

 

[tumbleyoda]

Another question?? I'll use Twist & Shout as an example. We now have 3 locations. Say our main location (Edmond) wanted to use athletes from MWC but not Tulsa. We are an entity with three locations, one owner. Can we say we are one gym for the sake of using crossovers from MWC but then in turn say the Tulsa location is a small gym because we didn't use any athletes from that location?? Or would saying we are one gym lump all locations into that classification? My opinion is that it's all or nothing. We either claim each location as a separate gym and make the athletes from those gyms stay put and allow the smaller gyms to claim small gym status, or we combine all locations into one gym, allowing us to use crossovers from each location, but forcing the two smaller gyms to claim large gym status. What are your thoughts??

If you use crossovers gym to gym IMHO then you would have to use large gym status. That is the tradeoff for the smaller gyms being a part of of the T and S family. If you dont use crossovers gym to gym then you could use small gym status for each gym. However that seems to defeat the purpose of most of the gyms of that type of model. You want them to cross to the main gym or the more prestigious teams, wherever they are located. That is why the gym was bought/merged/partnered with.

Kind of hard to say one gym one family but then split when it comes to competition and say sike not really. Just my opinion.

 

[ACEDAD]

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

(I ain't hatin'. I'm just askin')

ACE is not a franchise. Happy and JR are the only owners.

 

[retiredl5cheer]

This may be off topic a bit, but I have a question about the whole 2 gyms = 1 big team thing. I've noticed a trend this year that multiple gyms are combining their level 5 athletes to create a powerhouse level 5 team. We've seen this done in the past under one gym (Fame Super Seniors), but now it seems to be happening under more than one gym (PSS, Pitt Poison).

How does the Worlds roster work for teams such as these? Are these combined level 5 teams allowed to pull from either gym if they competed at the same competition? Or are they not allowed to pull anyone but their rostered alternates?

EDIT: I just remembered that this was done in the past with Cheergyms.com's "All American Team." (??) Does anyone know how this worked?