An owner would therefore be prudent, if possible during the negotiations, to accept that he has the possibility of terminating the management contract in such circumstances. Most operators would strongly oppose this, given that brand value is based on the value of the operator`s existing management agreements in a third-party sales scenario. Any exit provisions in favour of an owner in those circumstances would have a negative impact on the value of the brand for a third-party buyer. Nevertheless, an owner should have the comfort of not having to suddenly support a large capital expenditure resulting from the sale/rebranding, and a compromise would be that the owner has a right of termination if these expenses exceed a cap. The separation has been facilitated by the fact that hotel guests do not particularly care who owns the hotel property, as long as the hotel`s physical facilities and level of service are up to their expectations and are predictable, satisfying, clean and safe. Branding was a way to ensure consistency and meet minimum standards for the brand. In this evolving dynamic, brands have focused on operation, brand standards, and system extension. They were less capital-reduced, since owners now provide most of the capital for the construction and maintenance of hotel properties and related facilities. • Major breach of the management agreement by the owner• Failure of the owner to provide sufficient working capital• Transfer of hotel ownership • Bankruptcy of the owner, mortgage default/foreclosure• Condemnation or degradation of hotel owners throughout the country are aware of both the benefits and hindrances of long-term hotel management contracts with brand operators (and almost all of these contracts are long-term term, often 40 or 50 years). On the other hand, the brand can offer stability, uniform standards, a reservation system, marketing know-how and professional staff.
But the downside can be difficult for owners – brands can lead to rigid unnecessary costs, not meet market conditions, and be insensitive to the need for the owner to run a profitable business and protect their assets. • failure of the operator to a predefined level of performance• termination at will• material breach of the management contract by the operator• fraud/misappropriation of funds by the operator• sale/withdrawal of the trademark by the operator• condemnation or deterioration of the property In order to ensure that everything provided for in the HMA as grounds for unilateral termination by the owner; Under the legislation of the United Arab Emirates, a thorough review should be carried out at the beginning of the AHMA negotiations. Unilateral termination for reasons of convenience (no delay of the operator) As a rule, the fees of the manager are supplemented by various fees for the centralized services of the brand concerned. If these are controlled (for example. B a payment for each reservation received on the brand`s website), the fees decrease when the activity decreases. However, other payments can be determined, regardless of whether the hotel is in service or not. In order to properly manage the hotel and cover the hotel`s debts (whether with regard to service providers or suppliers or salary costs, etc.), the operator ensures that he has access to working capital when necessary and that there is usually a specific obligation for the owner to provide them when the hotel`s revenues are likely to be insufficient, to meet these requirements. In this case, Five Holdings (formerly SKAI Holdings) is the international hotel operator Viceroy Hotel Group, which operates hotels under the «Viceroy» brand. Five Holdings is the developer of the Viceroy Palm Jumeirah Hotel and residences on the famous Palm Jumeirah in Dubai. Five Holdings had entered into a long-term hotel management agreement with Viceroy in 2013 under which Viceroy was to manage and manage the hotel.