Stop Anthos from Taking over CrossFit

[Craig Massey]

Originally Posted by Patrick Walsh

Which one is it? How would they have control of HQ?

This has been covered numerous times in this thread already.

How does Coach control HQ?
By virtue of his 50% ownership of CrosFit Inc.

Anthos would have as much control over the company as they would. They can dispute or block every action Coach wants to take.
Anthos then have the path open to claim that Coach's "mismanagement" of CF is devaluing their investment and to tie him up in court disproving that, then "ease" him out.

Any share in CrossFit Inc. would let them do that. A 50% share makes it much easier to pull off.

50% doesn't mean that they get to make half the decisions, it means they get to have a say in all of the decisions and Coach's life becomes a constant game of politics and disputes instead of developing CF.

Basically what Russell just said.
Again.

[Jason Soteros]

ANTHOS GO AWAY.... NOBODY LIKES YOU

[Patrick O'Keefe]

I've read somewhere that there are over or around 4,000 affiliates. Why don't we all just pony up $5,000 each and buy Laura Glassmans 50% equity. Then it would all be over!!!!

Imagine that *****. CrossFit owned by the foot soldiers that make it so great and the visionary him self. That sounds like a no brainer to me!

**I know it's not that easy, but anything is possible**

[Jesse R james]

Originally Posted by Patrick O'Keefe

I've read somewhere that there are over or around 4,000 affiliates. Why don't we all just pony up $5,000 each and buy Laura Glassmans 50% equity. Then it would all be over!!!!

Imagine that *****. CrossFit owned by the foot soldiers that make it so great and the visionary him self. That sounds like a no brainer to me!

**I know it's not that easy, but anything is possible**

HQ has already said they'd be against that idea as well. Sorry. They want control to be in Greg's hands alone (understandable).

[Patrick O'Keefe]

Originally Posted by Jesse R james

HQ has already said they'd be against that idea as well. Sorry. They want control to be in Greg's hands alone (understandable).

What if we all "Loaned" him 5k, paid off his ex wife, then gave us 2 years of free affiliation?

[Jesse R james]

I think a lot of why some people are having a hard time with this is because it seems to be predicated on a lot of "If's" going a certain way...

IF Anthos gets the 50%...

IF Anthos decides to deadlock with Coach Glassman...

IF Anthos hasn't changed their stance from what it supposedly was before...

IF Anthos tries to muscle out Coach Glassman in court...

IF Coach Glassman is unable to fight them off despite his own financial backing...

IF Athos changes the affiliate model...

IF Anthos forces retailing/franchising on affiliates...

What we're seeing is a lot of "If's" being thrown around as definite truths of what will happen. I'm not saying anything about the chances of anything happening, but a lot of this "doomsday for affiliates" talk comes down to things going down one, specific path of "If's" as opposed to any other way.

At this point I would propose another "If"...

If Anthos see's the fear being put into affiliates right now by HQ (perhaps rightfully so, perhaps not) and realizes anything they do negatively would result in the brand being destroyed and losing an investment...why would they still be investing?

I can almost guarantee you they are watching this storm and seeing where it's headed, so if they're still going through with the purchase from Lauren they're one of the following:

1. Really stupid, which is possible but unlikely.

2. Thinking they can eek out more than $20 million in returns before the brand is worthless. Again possible, but unlikely as HQ has done a FANTASTIC job in preparing to dump the brand value if they don't get what they want.

3. Aren't as evil as is being touted and may have changed their approach.

For all the finger pointing and "Aha!'s" being thrown about concerning LuLuLemon's connection (via Bryan Kelly's wife), maybe we should consider the possibilty that her influence via the brand is what steered them into a more helpful and less harmful way of thinking.

Or maybe the really are the evil, money hungry vampires they've been made out to be.

[Russell Berger]

Originally Posted by Daniel Scarnecchia

I have a question for the lawyers here, and perhaps for everyone involved as an affiliate to seriously think about.

What I've taken away from this thread is: in an attempt to protect the interests of one of the owners, as well as the culture of Crossfit, HQ Staff, along with Coach Glassman, are engaging in a deliberate attempt to devalue the business (in dollar terms) in an attempt to poison the well vis-à-vis Lauren Glassman's attempt to sell her 50% to a private equity firm.

How is this not either a breach of Greg Glassman's fiduciary duties or at the very least tortious interference?

Daniel,
I'm posting this response at the request of a lawyer friend of CrossFit's who cannot access the DB on his mobile device.

"Coach Glassman's unique vision and model for this business has created the meteoric growth and resulting value that exists today, and which is expected to continue growing in the future. The Anthos vision and model are antithetical to and destructive the core precepts from which the value of CrossFit arises. This is clearly demonstrated by the views of the many affiliates who've posted on this thread. Anthos' vision would destroy the affiliate relationship and thereby do great harm to the value of the company, and its value to the 4,000 affiliates worldwide and the 30,000 certified trainers worldwide. Rejecting Anthos preserves and protects the source of the Company's value against the harm that would ensue from the Anthos vision being implemented in CrossFit. That's why their proposal was rejected when it was first presented. Protecting the culture and model - from which the value arises - is protecting the value of the business, and is therefore a performance, not a breach of duty."

[Jesse R james]

Originally Posted by Patrick O'Keefe

What if we all "Loaned" him 5k, paid off his ex wife, then gave us 2 years of free affiliation?

They've also said they presented Lauren with a better off than the one from Anthos and she turned it down. So that probably wouldn't work either.

Rock ---> Community <--- Hard Place

[Jamie Gowens]

Originally Posted by Jesse R james

I think a lot of why some people are having a hard time with this is because it seems to be predicated on a lot of "If's" going a certain way...

IF Anthos gets the 50%...

IF Anthos decides to deadlock with Coach Glassman...

IF Anthos hasn't changed their stance from what it supposedly was before...

IF Anthos tries to muscle out Coach Glassman in court...

IF Coach Glassman is unable to fight them off despite his own financial backing...

IF Athos changes the affiliate model...

IF Anthos forces retailing/franchising on affiliates...

What we're seeing is a lot of "If's" being thrown around as definite truths of what will happen. I'm not saying anything about the chances of anything happening, but a lot of this "doomsday for affiliates" talk comes down to things going down one, specific path of "If's" as opposed to any other way.

At this point I would propose another "If"...

If Anthos see's the fear being put into affiliates right now by HQ (perhaps rightfully so, perhaps not) and realizes anything they do negatively would result in the brand being destroyed and losing an investment...why would they still be investing?

I can almost guarantee you they are watching this storm and seeing where it's headed, so if they're still going through with the purchase from Lauren they're one of the following:

1. Really stupid, which is possible but unlikely.

2. Thinking they can eek out more than $20 million in returns before the brand is worthless. Again possible, but unlikely as HQ has done a FANTASTIC job in preparing to dump the brand value if they don't get what they want.

3. Aren't as evil as is being touted and may have changed their approach.

For all the finger pointing and "Aha!'s" being thrown about concerning LuLuLemon's connection (via Bryan Kelly's wife), maybe we should consider the possibilty that her influence via the brand is what steered them into a more helpful and less harmful way of thinking.

Or maybe the really are the evil, money hungry vampires they've been made out to be.

You stop speaking reasonably RIGHT NOW. This is about the sky falling dammit!!!



I say that under the much needed caveat -
I'm watching this ****storm. Whatever the outcome, if it negatively affects my business and therefore my livelihood, I'll take action. I won't have any part in the Glassmans' divorce proceedings one way or the other. That's their problem.

[Jesse R james]

Originally Posted by Russell Berger

Daniel,
I'm posting this response at the request of a lawyer friend of CrossFit's who cannot access the DB on his mobile device.

"Coach Glassman's unique vision and model for this business has created the meteoric growth and resulting value that exists today, and which is expected to continue growing in the future. The Anthos vision and model are antithetical to and destructive the core precepts from which the value of CrossFit arises. This is clearly demonstrated by the views of the many affiliates who've posted on this thread. Anthos' vision would destroy the affiliate relationship and thereby do great harm to the value of the company, and its value to the 4,000 affiliates worldwide and the 30,000 certified trainers worldwide. Rejecting Anthos preserves and protects the source of the Company's value against the harm that would ensue from the Anthos vision being implemented in CrossFit. That's why their proposal was rejected when it was first presented. Protecting the culture and model - from which the value arises - is protecting the value of the business, and is therefore a performance, not a breach of duty."

None of this really touches on what was actually asked, which was if Coach Glassman and HQ's "deliberate attempts to devalue the business (in dollar terms)" were a "breach of Greg Glassman's fiduciary duties or at the very least tortious interference".

All this "response" entails was that Greg was protecting the value in the rejection of Anthos. It doesn't touch on the supposed brand devaluation that has been occurring here and on Facebook.