Within certain limits, some provisions of these franchise agreements can be negotiated to address franchisee concerns.

　　Most branded hotel properties are operated under franchise agreements which are long documents with lots of fine print. They are usually presented to owners as "non-negotiable." This brand position is justified on the basis of need for uniformity in agreements and insuring that hotel guests will have a consistency of amenities, operations and experience in all hotels bearing the same flag.

　　However, hotel owners seeking a franchise also have legitimate interests, and there needs to be some recognition of these needs and the unique circumstances of every situation. In fact, within certain limits, some provisions of these franchise agreements can be negotiated to address franchisee concerns. Franchise agreements are not nearly as negotiable as hotel management agreements, so owners are well advised to understand what can and cannot be negotiated in order to realize the greatest value from their relationship with the brand.

　　Here are 8 of the most common franchise terms we are seeing negotiated today:

　　1. Franchise and royalty fees

　　While it's unlikely that franchise fees will be reduced for the entire term of the agreement, a "ramp up" in fees over the initial years of the agreement, particularly for a newly built hotel, can often be achieved. While other chain fees are more difficult to negotiate, it can be possible to get some temporary relief there as well.

　　2. Area of protection or non-competition

　　Hotel owners are properly concerned about the brand opening a competing hotel within their property's market area. If it's not offered, a franchisee should ask during the negotiations for a geographic area of protection or non-competition. The length and breadth of the restriction varies, but some protection is usually granted.

　　3. Ownership transfer

　　Most franchise agreements are still based on a simple ownership model, contemplating a single owner (or investment group) of a single hotel. Our experience is that more complicated owners (including REITs, private equity groups, real estate funds and other institutional investors) are increasingly focused on hotel investments. As a result, the transfer provisions should consider the structure of the owner and flexibility for transfers to certain related parties. In that regard, while a sale of a hotel often precipitates a property improvement plan or PIP, the owners should not trigger a new franchise agreement negotiation, set of franchise application fees and PIP when the transfer is to a related corporate entity or to another family member or trust set up for estate planning purposes.

　　4. Independent management and changes in management

　　The essence of franchise structure is providing the power of a brand with the greater flexibility and responsiveness of an independent operator (i.e. an operator unrelated to the brand). A good independent operator can provide an owner with a valuable buffer to the brand's demands for operating and capital expenditures, implementation of new and expensive brand standards, property improvement plans, and certain brand programs that may not make sense for a given property. While brands are, understandably, concerned that an operator must have the experience to run the property, the management company should be the owner's choice, and should have primary loyalty to the owner, not the brand. Thus, it's important to prevent a franchisor from having veto power over change in management of the hotel.

　　5. Liquidated damages

　　Liquidated damage provisions in the franchise agreement give the franchisor the ability to collect damages on the early termination of the franchise agreement. They can be a key inhibitor to the owner's ability to maximize the value of the property on sale, because liquidated damages have ballooned in recent years to as much as five times the average combined franchise fees and reimbursements paid to the franchisor. There are usually ways to both reduce the amount of the damages as well as restrict the potential transactions that might trigger payment.

　　6. Capital investments

　　Franchise agreements usually give the brands the ability to require substantial additional capital investments by owners to meet new physical brand requirements. There are a number of ways to reduce an owner's exposure, including restricting time periods and clarifying the types of capital improvements that can be required. This is particularly the case for a newly built property or an acquired property that may have recently undergone renovation.

　　7. Personal guarantees

　　Most franchisors require guarantees. Owners should seek to eliminate, or at least restrict the scope, of guarantees. As more and more owners are institutional, this requirement is less and less meaningful.

　　8. Key money

　　For the last several years, many brands have been willing to provide key money as a means of securing franchise agreements. While owners are typically excited about the prospect of getting additional funds, they should remember two things: First, key money is typically only paid after the hotel opens; it doesn't provide funds for construction. Second, and more importantly, key money is probably the most expensive money an owner will get; in return for key money, brands typically will be even less willing to negotiate important franchise agreement provisions.