Riding your OD to Canadian Optical Franchise Dominance in 10 Easy Steps

[optio]

removed

[optio]

removed

[NAICITPO]

Specsavers is privately held. It has no shareholders.

Actually a privately held company can have sharehodlers, investors and even issue stock (this would just not be traded publicly).

And what I am going on about it is it seems you are morally outraged that a company acted in its own best interests by taking money freely offered to them by a government. And what I am saying is it is the job of lawmakers to protect their citizens best interests, it is not the job of private companies to protect the citizens best interests.

I don't care what Wiki says.

[optio]

removed

[optio]

removed

[optio]

removed

[optio]

removed

[NAICITPO]

A for profit company is ethically driven (within the bounds of the law) to make profit for the shareholders. Lawmakers know this, they usually multi-generation business people or lawyers themselves. The lawmakers decided in the moment during the pandemic that including a clawback provision would mean companies might not take the money. They decided that giving the economy a life raft was more important than including this provision.

So my argument is not that it is moral for the company to take money they didn't need, but that it was both ethical and legal. It is up to the lawmakers, if they want to enforce a moral code on the businesses that operate within it, to put that into law.



It's almost like you are mad at a shark for eating a fish because it is not very nice. That is what a shark does, and similarly companies make money.

[optio]

removed

[NAICITPO]

If what you say is true, then why is it listed as a controversy in Wiki?

Because people like you who are conflating issues of morality, ethics, and legality.

[eastgtaod]

What smell test? They followed the law that was set out by the Australian government. Australia thought about having a clawback provision but decided against it. That is 100% on the Australian government. End of story.

If what you say is true, then why is it listed as a controversy in Wiki?

[NAICITPO]

What smell test? They followed the law that was set out by the Australian government. Australia thought about having a clawback provision but decided against it. That is 100% on the Australian government. End of story.

[optio]

removed

[NAICITPO]

Honestly, I think some of this could fall under the umbrella of antitrust.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/antitrust.asp

They discuss a number of things but here is a bottom line.

KEY TAKEAWAYS
- Antitrust laws were designed to protect and promote competition within all sectors of the economy.

I don't think funding a Canadian expansion with 90 million Australian tax dollars helps promote competition here.

Are you saying it would have been impossible for them to enter Canada without the funds they acquired LEGALLY from the Australian government? Because if what they did was illegal,the Australian government is the one who has standing to claim foul, not Canada. And they AREN'T!

Have some pride in what you do and compete against them and beat them. The sky is not falling, you will be able to compete against them. Online glasses are the death of B&M shops... tele-exams are the death of optometry clinics... Luxottica is a monopoly... VSP is a monopoly... and yet we are all still here and have jobs and make a comfortable living.

[eastgtaod]

Honestly, I think some of this could fall under the umbrella of antitrust.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/antitrust.asp

They discuss a number of things but here is a bottom line.

KEY TAKEAWAYS
- Antitrust laws were designed to protect and promote competition within all sectors of the economy.

I don't think funding a Canadian expansion with 90 million Australian tax dollars helps promote competition here.