MovieChat Forums > The Founder (2017) Discussion > Did the Handshake actually happen?

Did the Handshake actually happen?

posted 8 years ago by dodgy_man89
5 replies | jump to latest

This was my only problem with the movie. The brothers have dealt with him before, know he's a shady guy, and yet they still agree to an off the books handshake.

It sounds more like post-agreement regret after realizing how much McDonalds has gone on to make. It sounds very suspicious because a handshake agreement in front of business people/lawyers would actually be very easy to prove if it did occur as the movie portrays. It's as simple as getting sworn affidavits from people who were in the room when the deal occurred.

[–] joy2dai 8 years ago

Wikipedia says its in Ray Kroc's self written biography titled Grinding It Out.

[–] Iconoclast321 (386) 3 years ago

Wikipedia: "It is alleged that as part of the buyout Kroc promised, based on a handshake agreement, to continue the annual 1% royalty of the original agreement, but there is no evidence of this beyond a claim by a nephew of the McDonald brothers. Neither of the brothers publicly expressed disappointment over the deal. Speaking to someone about the buyout, Richard McDonald reportedly said that he had no regrets."

[–] wooody 8 years ago

Despite the fact that the McDonalds would probably been successful in litigation(even before they agreed to sell)Kroc admitted as much over the phone. I believe that litigation was more trouble than it was worth. The health costs alone. It seemed they would have been content with the lump sum, 1% override and the original store. Of course Kroc withheld the 1 and stripped them of their own name on the sole store. What a creep!

[–] spookyrat1 8 years ago

Yes, apparently so. Talk about stiffed. But to be fair, they probably should have given more consideration to renegotiating Ray's contract earlier when requested. Dick played hard ball, but Mac seemed to want to give the idea more consideration.🐭

[–] Rolltide (964) 2 years ago

I do not buy it because 1% was double the royalty they were getting before they relinquished their interest in the company. Does that make any damn sense?

They were getting just .5% in franchise fees from those stores. Why would they get 1% AFTER selling off the ownership rights?