[BlueNgold]

You assume that Chrysler has no per-dealerships costs.
That is simply not true.
Production rates for cars and spares - infrastructure - networking - shipping - training and on and on - all can track some costs to corporate.

The fact that they may net some to corporate at each dealership does not mean that they could not net more with less dealerships.
If you cut costs by more than you cut gross you increase profit.

And as for revamping to another kind of fast food - he already sells Isuzus and used cars. He has portions of his business that are not dependent on Chrysler.

Hey - by the way - where are all the people who claim on other threads that they will never buy another Chrysler or GM product?
I mean - really - what does it matter to them if this guy goes under - in their perfect world he would fail outright because smart Americans wouldn’t buy that government trash anyway.

[annieokie]

For the most part the Auto makers do not have a vested interest in the dealerships. The dealer owns the land, building and the cars that were FORCED on him by the auto makers. This dealer has to floor plan the forced inventory and pay interest each month. What is it to the auto makers how he handles his business or how many cars he sells each month.

Anything you attribute as cost by the auto makers is BUILT into the cost of the car to the dealer. The auto maker has his.

This is nothing more than POWER grabbing by the auto makers via OBAMA. They have finally figured out the way to eliminate the middle man aka THE DEALER. Same as the oil companies did in the past. No compitition, how high the moon (price).