have you ever read about a franchise on their page or brokers page and read "This franchise sucks"?
ROTFLMAO. That was my exact impression after perusing the FDD.
Actually we have discussed this particular offering before in this forum so I saw no need to revisit it. Your commentary is essentially spot on, the royalty structure is different than you indicated, but it matters not, there is no discernible innate value in this concept and the FDD reveals that in many ways. About the only useful thing I could discern is there is a residual value to the reciprocal nature of the franchise that is attractive to the transient community. If that is your target market than this may bear consideration.
Other than that they make money off the equipment, etc, etc. The number of ex-zees is alarming and I think the fact hat several tried to cut and run and go indy should tell you they are not seeing a value proposition.
Here is a fairly good measure of a franchise. Consider how many McDonald's zees would be willing to rip down the golden arches and start a XYZ-burger - I would guess none, zero, nada, because they know those golden arches drive customers to the door.
Now ask yourself how many of gym-X would be willing to tear down that sign and put up a XYZ-Fitness sign. I bet you would find a lot willing to give up the limited benefit of branding in the fitness industry for more flexibility and no royalty payments and jazzed up equipment cost.
The difference is, in the one example there is an innate value in the franchise, in the second it is a concept that has no relevant identity in saturated me too market place.
There are other issues, but they are systematic in regard to business in general and not just this particular enterprise.