its not compulsory that the pharmacist who owns a percentage of the place (the at least 60%) be the same one to oversee the day-to-day affairs of the pharmacy.its all subject to the arragements agreed on.if he's gonna attend to the running of the pharmacy and see patients,he'll be paid for that as well.
and about a non-pharmacist putting up a sign that hes not a pharmacist but owns a pharmacy and will attend to patients-on what knowledge base will he counsel patients.the law clearly prohibits that from happening,thats wh for a non-pharmacist to sell medicines,he can only either sell wholesale,or patent (non-prescription) medications such as cough syrups,paracetamol,etc.

Until recently,the law for non-pharmacists owning pharmacies was that they were required to have the premises registered and covered by a registered pharmacist,and that at all times "working hours",the pharmacist must be present.this entailed getting a pharmacist and paying him/her for registering the place,and then for working there.these 2 fees could be paid together or seperately depending on what agreement was reached by the proprietor and the pharmacist.
recently,what i've heard is that its been made a lot more difficult for non-pharmacists to own pharmacies.according to what i heard,the law now requires that for a non-pharmacist to own a pharmacy,in addition to the requirements described about,they must have a pharmacist as the major shareholder of the company(chairman of the board),and he/she must be related to the proprietor by blood.The fees for the pharmacist therefore increase,cos he/she will be paid a sitting allowance as chairman of the board,and is paid a percentage of annual profits.at least 60% proprietor,and 40% pharmacist(could be much more).this is what i was told recently.
please correct me if i'm wrong.
so the truth is that its no longer really worth it for non-pharmacists.i wonder if its a good or a bad thing for the profession.