Sure i seen it today, no hub caps on it !!!
I find a lot of the franchise packages on offer quite distasteful. Any loans/mortgages usually come with a disclaimer that your home may be at risk. From what Ian Lancaster says that is certainley the case with his franchise, infact he's says he most certainley makes it the case that you do have assests. Whether or not he makes it clear to his frachisees that their home is at risk i've no idea . But thats one of the criteria for finding the 'right candidate' ?
There's also lots of franchises that fail, and lots of franchises that are rip offs. Of course they won't be mentioned in any gumf by potential franchisors, but its also a fact too.
THAT IS CERTAINLY NOT THE CASE AND IT IS NOT WHAT I SAID 
When a Franchisee signs a Franchise Agreement, he is agreeing to the terms and conditions of that Agreement. The only time "his home would be at risk" is if he deliberately broke his agreement, costing the Franchisor time and money in repairing the damage, for which the Franchisor would be perfectly entitled to sue for compensation of the damage caused.
There is no point in sueing someone who has no assets, as the complainant would not be able to recover any money and would also incur further expense by his court costs.
Don't forget it is a two way street: If the Franchisor fails in his obligations the Franchisee can sue him, in which case the Franchisor's house could be at risk!!
Before making sweeping and untrue statements, please take time to consider the true situation:
A franchisee's home could only be at risk if he broke the agreement in some way damaging to the Franchisor: walked away and stole the Franchisor's customers - sold the Franchisor's round to another person - failed to pay the agreed franchise royalty fee etc and even then the Franchisor would not have any claim on the Franchisee's house, as in the case of a bank which has tied a loan to the value of a customers house.
A Franchisor can only take the Franchisee to court - it is for the court to decide if the Franchisee has actually damaged the Franchisor and if so whether the Franchisee should pay damages and how much - only then could the Franchisees house possible be at risk if he were unable to pay the damages/costs from any other source.
I always advise taking on Franchisees who have assets as an insurance against them simply walking away with the Franchisors business - any sensible business man would do the same. The Franchise Agreement sets out all the obligations that the Franchisee has to the Franchisor
AND the obligations the Franchisor has to the Franchisee - the Agreement is legal and binding but worthless if either party can claim they are unable to pay any sort of compensation for their failure to honour their side of the Agreement.
The Agreement is fair and reasonable, and anyone entering into it does so of their own free will and knowing that there would be possible penalties in the event of them causing damage by breaking the terms of the Agreement.
It is not a financial arrangement - there is no lending of money to be repaid.
A franchisee can walk away from his franchise at any time with no penalty.
I agree that there are some franchises out there which are rip-offs, but all business is a case of buyer beware, and even then if the Agreement is a decent one (and the franchisee can take legal advice before signing - we actually advise them to do so) the franchisee can sue the franchisor if he fails to provide the benefits described in the Agreement.
Before making damaging and untrue statements about my business, please do me the courtesy of asking if what you are accusing me of is actually true before saying it on a public forum.