Nude Kings: banker.com "it did not sell.....want it?"

[deter]

Aside from which, neither you, George, nor anyone else here has convinced me that there wasn't a mutual recission here.

Mutual rescission? You can call it what ever you like ; you prefer mutual rescission I prefer slimey ? My bets are that most people would call it slimey and sleazy to Hype a domain sale then not actually complte the sale OR even acknowldge that a sale fell through by "mutual resission" ; why should they the main object of getting the Hype of a sale publized is done and that's really all that matters , so that everyone THINKS a big sale went forward.

But that dosent matter does it John, Only the Law matters .not their fault everyone is a sucker to believe them .

And that's the problem , some in the industry could care less how their "deals" reflect upon the entire industry.

 

[GeorgeK]

That's right, Chuck. My point was that it's unusual for Rick to simply walk away from a "completed deal". Not impossible, but it makes one wonder why. And why if they did mutually rescind the deal (which we don't know, that's John's theory), why it wasn't reported, but was left in the press as a done deal?

I look at all the possibilities:

1) Domain King feels the domain name is worth $41K or greater. Why would he walk away?? Yet, in the past, he fought with a vengeance for properties.com.

2) Domain King feels the domain name is worth LESS than $41K. Why would he have bid more than his true valuation? Certainly walking away makes sense to him here, economically, if his valuation was under $41K.

3) Seller thinks the domain is worth $41K or more. Seller would gain by rescinding, but certainly DK would probably think it's worth even more than the seller??

4) Seller thinks it's worth less than $41K. No advantage to the seller to rescind -- he should enforce the deal.

5) Sedo (if they were the broker) would want transactions to conclude, to collect their fee, irregardless. Why would they simply allow parties to walk away? Doesn't it hurt the integrity of their marketplace??

 

[jberryhill]

If this matter isn't up for a discussion on a Domain Name forum, I don't know what is.

It was the choice of forum, George.

If it was a mutual recission, yeah, sure it might be of interest to domainers. If Rick Schwarz had sex in the Marriot swimming pool with Howard, then that might also be of interest to domainers. I can't think of what wouldn't. But that's not the point.

Either it happened, or it didn't. If it didn't, shouldn't those who hyped the transaction as a "completed deal" explain themselves??

The explanation is exceedingly simple. For several days there was a whiteboard in a room where people listed domains for sale, and where other people posted bids. At dinner on Friday, the top bids for the names were announced. If by "those who hyped the transaction" you mean Ron Jackson, then, yep, he was sitting there and he put it in his article.

It looks like the deal did not go through, and we don't know why. Boo hoo. Nobody who was not a party to the deal owes anybody else an explanation of anything.

5) Sedo (if they were the broker) would want transactions to conclude, to collect their fee, irregardless. Why would they simply allow parties to walk away? Doesn't it hurt the integrity of their marketplace??

Sedo wasn't running that auction, and if the domain name was exclusively listed with Sedo, and the seller posted it on the whiteboard by mistake, then I could see how the deal could have gone south. As far as "John's theory" goes, recission is one of many perfectly mundane explanations for what happened.

 

[chatcher]

I look at all the possibilities:

Well we could speculate all day about what the possibilities are. You've corresponded with the owner, and he didn't explain why the deal didn't go through. I don't know if you've asked the bidder, but assuming he doesn't tell you why the deal didn't go through, then I guess speculation is all you're left with.

Tell me again which party you were warning us not to do business with? I look at all the possibilities:

The owner?
The bidder?
The broker?
The reporter?
You?

 

[deter]

If by "those who hyped the transaction" you mean Ron Jackson, then, yep, he was sitting there and he put it in his article.

It looks like the deal did not go through, and we don't know why. Boo hoo. Nobody who was not a party to the deal owes anybody else an explanation of anything.

Except you are omitting facts John ,thats scarey considering you are an attorney ..the FACTS are Rick Swartz INVIITED the Dnjournal to report .

Looks like the Hype was orchestrated ..not by Dnjournal but by the orgainizers

but like you say ..legally they dont owe anyone an explanation ..and I'm sure EVERYONE will remember that !

 

[chatcher]

...If Rick Schwarz had sex in the Marriot swimming pool with Howard, then that might also be of interest to domainers...

John, I was hoping someone would change the subject. But that isn't what I had in mind. How far were you from "someone" when that happened?

 

[GeorgeK]

It looks like the deal did not go through, and we don't know why. Boo hoo. Nobody who was not a party to the deal owes anybody else an explanation of anything.

That's where we differ. If they had not announced it in the press as a completed deal, it was none of our business. When they entered the public realm, they left themselves open to the public's scrutiny of the deal, and its circumstances. They can be silent all they want, and that in itself makes one wonder. At a minimum, they should have corrected the deal in the press. It shouldn't be me pointing it out -- they should have been proactive.

The press is misused a lot. For business.com, what was the value of all that publicity of a huge announced sale? How much would it cost for a media buy, to get the press they did? Similarly, for men.com, KRL on another forum, at the time of the deal, discussed that one consideration of the announced price was the media exposure it would bring.

Suppose (it didn't happen) that banker.com "sale" got a lot of press in the mainstream media, like the Wall St. Journal, had they attended T.R.A.F.F.I.C., and that Rick then got private offers of $200,000 for the domain immediately afterwards, based on the media exposure. Would he have wanted the deal rescinded??

 

[David G]

GeorgeK, is there a reason you do not address this possibility which I have mentioned a few times?

"I still maintain there is no obvious reason for domainking to fake a purchase. $41K sounds like a lot of $ to us but in his major league it really is not greatly significant, IMO. See my prior posts re possible financing being delayed for some odd reason, which BTW is little more than a guess."

 

[JuniperPark]

I have now heard from both the buyer and seller but it turns out there is also a third party involved (a broker at Sedo) that I am now waiting to hear from. Once I hear from him I will have a better idea of what is going on with this transaction and will let you know. Once I have all of the facts I will update our original report if necessary.

I appreciate the effort, Duke! The seller's original comments to George imply there was no sale in progress, 3rd party or not. Can you ask them why this wasn't mentioned to George?

I DON'T think you should revise your original article, you should so as all newspapers do and create an update/followup, if a small detail is in error.

If this turns out to be what George is suggesting, it's the biggest fraud since sex.com. This was part of the "bait" used to get 125 people to pay $800 - $5,000 plus airfare to his seminar. That's roughly a quarter of a million dollars out of domainer's pockets, where they apparently witnessed either a scam or attempted domain hijacking. THIS IS A BIG STORY.

 

[GeorgeK]

Financing being delayed? $41K should be under one week's cashflow for Rick. Probably more like 2 or 3 days of cashflow. If he doesn't have $41K in the bank this moment, I would be shocked, and THAT would be strange.

Juniper: I didn't suggest fraud. Just that the deal didn't happen, based on what the seller is saying (and that he's willing to negotiate and consider my offers, even suggesting joint ventures). We're all still scratching our heads. Some would prefer we not even discuss it, as it's none of our business --- had it been a private sale, no one would have cared.

Another possibility (we just don't know all the facts -- that's why the light is being shined on this, to try to get at the facts, and raise folks' awareness of these issues when doing deals of their own) is that whoever posted the name for sale didn't have proper authorization. Which would be odd, given folks are going to a professionally-run event, where you would expect proper due diligence.

 

[David G]

Hi again GeorgeK. It annoys me when questions are asked but not all are replied too (only selected ones). It happens all the time it seems (not just picking on you).

You still did not reply to this obvious issue ""I still maintain there is no obvious reason for domainking to fake a purchase. $41K sounds like a lot of $ to us but in his major league it really is not greatly significant, IMO."

 

[GeorgeK]

I agree with you, Trader. It's puzzling, as it would be the act of someone desperate or an attention whore to fake a purchase, and he should be far above it. Once we know all the facts, we'd be in a better position to judge things. It presents the entire industry poorly, though, when "completed deals" fall apart. I would think if he's trying to set the example for the rest of us, he'd want to make sure that the deal DID go through, cleanly and smoothly, like those of us lower on the totem pole. Anything less than perfection would be a stain.

 

[JuniperPark]

GeorgeK, is there a reason you do not address this possibility which I have mentioned a few times?

"I still maintain there is no obvious reason for domainking to fake a purchase. $41K sounds like a lot of $ to us but in his major league it really is not greatly significant, IMO. See my prior posts re possible financing being delayed for some odd reason, which BTW is little more than a guess."

Isn't this contradictory? If he is "The King" and $41,000 isn't "significant" then why would he need financing? Just write a check. Unless, of course, "The King" isn't really as successful as he claims....

 

[chatcher]

...This was part of the "bait" used to get 125 people to pay $800 - $5,000 plus airfare to his seminar...

Huh?

The conference organizers provided a blank whiteboard for attendees to use to buy and sell domain names at auction. I am not aware of any domain names being advertised before the conference, or of any specific promises of sales that would be made there. How was that bait?

It doesn't sound like the owner of the domain name in question was in attendance, and since the high bidder was one of the conference organizers, I fail to see how this personally affects any paying attendee. At any rate, I have not heard one single person who attended the show express any regret at having attended. The only complaining I have heard is from people who didn't go.

Am I misunderstanding your post?

Once we know all the facts, we'd be in a better position to judge things...

I had to look twice to see if it was really you posting that. I don't disagree, but it seems to contradict your earlier assertions.

 

[David G]

Isn't this contradictory? If he is "The King" and $41,000 isn't "significant" then why would he need financing? Just write a check. Unless, of course, "The King" isn't really as successful as he claims....

Not really too contradictory as many wealthy persons and big firms prefer to use financing even if they have the funds for paying cash.

Another possibility is the sale could have been contingent on something else which failed to materialize for some odd reason. I seriously doubt it was a fake sale as so many here are alleging.

 

[GeorgeK]

A contingent sale? That would be newsworthy in itself, if DNJournal is being used to report contingent sales. That'd be like reporting men.com sold for $1.32 million, when in fact other names were bundled in the package. Oops, I did it again. arty:

Hey Guido, I'll buy your ghshg.com for $5 million, report it in the press, and if some venture capitalist buys me out for $60 million, we both win. If they don't, we cancel.

 

[David G]

A contingent sale? That would be newsworthy in itself, if DNJournal is being used to report contingent sales. That'd be like reporting men.com sold for $1.32 million, when in fact other names were bundled in the package. Oops, I did it again. arty: Hey Guido, I'll buy your ghshg.com for $5 million, report it in the press, and if some venture capitalist buys me out for $60 million, we both win. If they don't, we cancel.

It's possible it was the kind of contingency which may not get reported to Duke, such as the sale could be cancelled if something later proves incorrect, or contingent on the seller also owning bank.com (only an example) and that being sold as part of the deal in 30 days for say $2 million extra but it turns out that fell thru or perhaps he did not really own bank.com or possibly there was a mixup on the other names or terms.

It's also possible there was some type of misunderstanding involved. Perhaps domainking thought $41K was a Buy It Now Price but it was really only a Reserve Price (just an example of a possibility).

 

[GeorgeK]

Hopefully this experience will raise the bar, in future deal reporting.

 

[David G]

Hopefully this experience will raise the bar, in future deal reporting.

You need to remember George and Juniper that Duke is doing all this reporting as a free public service and does not have unlimited resouces to investigate every possible twist and turn in a transaction. Lots of things could happen which would cause a late cancellation of a sale all beyond the capacity of DNJournal to catch in advance.

Once again I ask all you guys why someone like Schwartz would fake this purchase when $41K is almost like pettycash to him?

Is anyone else here with opinions or just us few?

 

[MediaHound]

Chuck, you bring up an important fact:

[...]then I guess speculation is all you're left with.

In spirit of speculation, think the following would qualify for 'Quote of the year'? -

but certainly DK would probably

And, excuse me for finding this funny:

Tell me again which party you were warning us not to do business with? I look at all the possibilities: The owner? The bidder? The broker? The reporter? You?

RMFAO

the act of someone desperate or an attention whore

Those of the fan club who want to follow rants that may happen off this board may wish to bookmark: http://www.livejournal.com/users/georgek

Hopefully this experience will raise the bar, in future deal reporting.

So that's why you felt this thread belonged in "People to avoid dealings with?" Interesting, your first assertion here was your opinion of where to start this circus. Lo and behold, you were proven wrong (as indicated by the thread having been moved).
I think some of us just have too much time. I usually try to stay out, but just couldnt resist adding my cents worth.