Re: Brinks & Broadview Takeovers

[Jim <alarminex@xxxxxxx>]

On Oct 3, 4:48=EF=BF=BDam, "Robert L Bass" <Sa...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> "Jim" wrote:
>
> > YOU know that you are never going to get anyone here to agree with you =
on
> > either lockouts or term contracts...
>
> I agree with Bob about lockouts. =EF=BF=BDThey are often used to keep a c=
lient
> "hostage" to the installing dealer. =EF=BF=BDIf the alarm is sold (not le=
ased) the
> programming access code should be given to the alarm owner. =EF=BF=BDI al=
so believe
> that long-term contracts are normally not in the best interest of the
> consumer.
>
> --
>
> Regards,
> Robert L Bass
>
Are there abuses of lockouts ......... sure! Is the concept bad and
does EVERYBODY abuse it? NO!

Those that abuse it are bad. Not the lockouts. Guns don't commit the
crimes.

The issue about long term contracts is a non issue. It has nothing to
do with the end user ...... IF IT"S NOT ABUSED!

Tell me you didn't have contracts with your clients. What do you mean
"normally"? Where has it been unequivocally determined that term
contracts are always abused or mostly abused or "normally" abused?
How much less would you have been able to get for your company if you
didn't have contracts. What? Are you saying that you didn't abuse the
contracts?  OH MY GOD! HOW UNUSUAL!  Are you saying that you wouldn't
sell your accounts to someone because THEY might abuse them? Well,
that can't be ..... because you did sell them. Being rather
hypocritical ..... aren't you?

If company who buy accounts want long term contracts is it beneficial
to someone who owns an alarm company to NOT have them?  Simply because
there are some people who abuse them at the expense of not
accumulating value in the company? It's just a trade off for providing
good service to your clients ........ that's all it is. A mutual
benefit to client and company for doing business together. If someone
abuses it, and I don't, does that mean that what I'm doing is wrong?
Bullshit! And no ...... it's not for the benefit of the client .....
it's for MY benefit. The reason I went into business was for MY
benefit. My clients will benefit from the good service I will give
them in order to attain their good will and loyalty. But that doesn't
mean that I will fail to gain what benefit I can get to attain value
in my business.
If you sold one job and made a certain profit and then you sold
another job and made a greater profit, would you go back to the first
client and give them a refund? That would be fair ..... and for the
benefit of the client ..... wouldn't it?

Come on Robert. If a company wants a loan, from a bank, wants to sell
his company, what will any attorney or business consultant tell the
owner of a recurring revenew company?  Don't have long term contracts?
NO! Contracts are strictly and simply for MY benefit and in return I
give my clients the very best service that they can want. If that were
not so, I wouldn't have been able to stay in business for 40 years
now. Do my clinents not sign the long term agreements?  NO ..... they
sign them knowing full well what it's all about. "Some day, should I
sell my accounts, the buyer will want to know that there is some
guarantee that customers will stay with them, at least for the
duration of the agreement" Simple as that. Some will say that they may
be moving shortly, I'll sign them for a year. All others are 5 years
with 5  year renewal. I can only remember 2 or three potential clients
who didn't want to sign any contract. They were all attorneys. They
are all .... not my clients.

I can understand objection to the abuse of lockouts and term contracts
but not to the basic and intended purpose of them ..... aside from the
fact that no matter what anyone thinks about them ..... they're not
going to go away.

Likewise, I love women, but object to anyone abusing them. I would
never rant about eliminating them because someone else abused them.