Shane Bellone Thinks It's Ok To Bypass Broker.

[talhahassan]

Hi

I sent two LLL.com domains which I was brokering to Shane Bellone in response to his thread in Domains Wanted.

He replied to me first about dropping the price.

I asked how much is his client's highest offer . To which he said how many months finance would be agreeable.

I told him owners won't agree to financing options.

He then asked me why I messaged him in the first place as his requirement was related to financing the domain and he will contact the owners now to see if they will agree.

I apologized to him for missing the financing part and asked when did it become a good business practice to bypass brokers and contact the owners directly.

His reply was " My business is to get the best price for myself and my clients. Bypassing a broker who may or may not have an exclusive contract makes sense. Saves them a commission which therefore saves me or my client money."

I am attaching the link to the screenshot as well.

imgur. com/a/l4VDz
I think it's totally unethical to bypass a broker . What are your thoughts on this?

 

[promo]

I think you need to go back and re-read what your bosom buddy uttered earlier in this thread. He made it abundantly clear that he has no obligations towards sellers contract and he would do his best to break it if it ensured his client a miniscule better price. Now its this bottom feeder tactic you are defending and this is what is upsetting to me.

Everything is not about the extra buck. I dont condone front running or anything of the like, I reacted to "Mr." Bellones comments, not the situation at hand.

 

[mr-x]

I think you need to go back and re-read what your bosom buddy uttered earlier in this thread. He made it abundantly clear that he has no obligations towards sellers contract and he would do his best to break it if it ensured his client a miniscule better price. Now its this bottom feeder tactic you are defending and this is what is upsetting to me.

Everything is not about the extra buck. I dont condone front running or anything of the like, I reacted to "Mr." Bellones comments, not the situation at hand.

You're being insulting for no reason. Op didn't have a contract.

Shane has no more legal or ethical obligation to use any market place or broker then you do.

If he chooses to deal with a domain owner directly, and there is an exclusive contract, the domain owner has 3 choices: referrer the inquiry to the broker, complete the sale and pay the broker fee or break the contract.

If the client breaks a contract, you have the right to enforce the contract. That's my last word on this.

 

[promo]

For no reason... Well depends on how you view the world. To me there has been a number of upsetting comments made by "Mr." Bellone.

This is not the case in your world view. He is just doing what other piranhas do. Trying to entice a seller to break his contract. In my world it is against what you call "ethical obligations". Surprising you even acknowledged the need for them at all.

You put all the fault on the seller, but I expect my buyers to be trustworthy too.

 

[Joe N]

For no reason... Well depends on how you view the world. To me there has been a number of upsetting comments made by "Mr." Bellone.

This is not the case in your world view. He is just doing what other piranhas do. Trying to entice a seller to break his contract. In my world it is against what you call "ethical obligations". Surprising you even acknowledged the need for them at all.

You put all the fault on the seller, but I expect my buyers to be trustworthy too.

Please quote the post where Shane said he would actively entice or convince a seller to break a contract.

 

[mr-x]

He is just doing what other piranhas do. Trying to entice a seller to break his contract.

I'll need that quote..

 

[promo]

Let me help you then...

.....

His reply was " My business is to get the best price for myself and my clients. Bypassing a broker who may or may not have an exclusive contract makes sense. Saves them a commission which therefore saves me or my client money."

I hate to sound like a broken record but maybe it takes you an unusually long time to understand things... the contract is between the owner and broker not between anyone else. It would be unethical and potentially illegal for the owner to break the contract but that's their prerogative.

 

[AbdulBasit.com]

Re-read my post. If you DON'T have an exclusive contract, you're not a broker, you're a middle man, a marketer, a re-seller and I have no obligation to use your service.

If you HAVE and exclusive contract to sell a domain and your client sells to me directly, it's your client's obligation to pay you, not mine.

That is an industry norm.

That might be your industry's norm and even if it is, I don't follow that way. This way I could have made additional 6 figures worth of money by bypassing brokers who worked for me without having any exclusive contract. It's about trust and faith between both parties.

 

[MasterOfMyDomains]

 

[Joe N]

Let me help you then...

A private conversation taken out of context with a lot of speculation added by people in this thread, and a completely true statement of contract legality.

Again.... Please quote the post where Shane said he would actively entice or convince a seller to break a contract.

 

[promo]

Joe. I can show you stuff, but cant help you understand if you refuse to see.

 

[Joe N]

Joe. I can show you stuff, but cant help you understand if you refuse to see.

Refuse to see?? Holy crap, all I'm asking for are some facts, not conjecture or reading between the lines. If anyone really wanted to they could also "see" that the moon landing was faked or that 9/11 was planned by George Bush himself.

I'm quite new here, and to domaining in general, but I'm disgusted at the behaviour of long-time members here whom I would normally look up to. I expect better than to see a community member's name and reputation being treated so disrespectfully based on so little fact, and so much speculation.

Smarten up people. Shane was doing his job and his due diligence. Nothing more. There has been absolutely nothing in this thread that should lead anyone to believe that he was trying to convince anyone to break a contract.

 

[mr-x]

Let me help you then...

I agree, enticing someone to break a contract is unethical.

In this case, OP didn't have a contract.

 

[mr-x]

That might be your industry's norm and even if it is, I don't follow that way. This way I could have made additional 6 figures worth of money by bypassing brokers who worked for me without having any exclusive contract. It's about trust and faith between both parties.

Good for you and them. Nothing wrong with a verbal agreements, I prefer mine to be written down b/c I don't trust my memory or yours.

 

[AbdulBasit.com]

Good for you and them. Nothing wrong with a verbal agreements, I prefer mine to be written down b/c I don't trust my memory or yours.

That's your problem for not trusting even your memory. lol

 

[S-B]

 

[Aamsra]

Though its obviously unsupported or unprofessional sending names that a buyer/buyer's broker did not ask for but in his very initial post, broker has already accepted the mistake so, people who are continuously trying to let the broker/middle man down, should also understand they're are not the angels, they did mistakes too and must move on.

I apologized to him for missing the financing part and asked when did it become a good business practice to bypass brokers and contact the owners directly.

I apologized him for wasting his time and this was the first time it happened with me,still it doesn't give anyone a valid reason to bypass any broker.

I am surprised that you don't consider this as an unethical business act.

Secondly, buyer's broker did not refuse the reference of conversation pasted by the seller's broker, (a part of it given below), so, he accepts he said so that is the basic ground of assessing the mentality/caliber of a person.

" My business is to get the best price for myself and my clients. Bypassing a broker who may or may not have an exclusive contract makes sense. Saves them a commission which therefore saves me or my client money.

Obviously money is what every business person regards but revealing that money is just everything is cheap level of thought. Money is not everything, it is something that makes an ordinary obvious. Treating money with more respect than people is another substandard level of thought and truly professional and experienced people don't think this way.

Next, private conversation are to kept private but, there is no norm or hard and fast rule in the industry that forbids to share it if things become so ambiguous just like in this case. Again, defending the buyer's broker/middle man looks too stupid after reading above message and silence from the buyer's broker on it.

Money talks. As long as I'm paying, most will do business with me. Plain and simple.

...even worst from the buyer's broker. Completely disappointing and low level of thinking and doing business. Means if in future, a person lacks enough money and follows industry norms more importantly ethical norms would not be regarded to do serious business with?... Extremely substandard

Just too surprising how few people are trying to back the negativity of a person and his limited way of doing business just as they are hired to act his lawyer to back his false statements/thoughts/believes.

A person is as good as his word. A little child can understand the simple way of living but mature people seem to lack the common sense and common ethical practices of life.

I do not personally have any influence with either of the two parties. People commenting or contributing to this thread should avoid any biased behavior.

Thank you.

 

[HUKU]

Just too surprising how few people are trying to back the negativity of a person and his limited way of doing business

You mean how many? Don't believe the hype, there are way too many amateurs, sheep, fanboys etc in this thread who'd rather not think for themselves about a slightly complex issue...

 

[Aamsra]

You mean how many? Don't believe the hype, there are way too many amateurs, sheep, fanboys etc in this thread who'd rather not think for themselves about a slightly complex issue...

Very true

 

[Kenny]

This is above and beyond the conflict between the OP and SB.

Once again... I love these threads where "businessmen" clearly show their true nature and colors.
SB is wrong about most of the members of this forum being hypocrites.
He doesn't know most of the members of this forum, and he will never know most of the members of this forum.
Perhaps most of the people that will do business with him, are, in fact, just like him, or want to be just like him. Money first, last, and everything in between. Good luck with that in all your future endeavors.

That is not what NamePros is about.

Peace,
Cyberian

 

[DomainVP]

No 'ethical' line was crossed here; empires have been built on cutting out the middle man - which is exactly what OP is.

I would have done the exact same thing, except I might consider a small 'finders fee' for providing the lead. Unless the broker is getting me a phenomenal deal, and I am interested in establishing a long term relationship, going direct to owner makes the most sense.

Think 'real estate'.

An agent selling a house has an agreement in place with the owner. If I am presented the opportunity to buy from the Realtor, and I approach the owner with an offer, the owner cannot sell directly to me because of their binding contract.

Same situation, except here apparently there was no contract between OP and owner.

Bottom line, OP was bested at his own game - and tears were shed.

 

[wormfood]

@talhahassan let's talk about ethics huh lol

You contact me on a LLL you want to sell to me I tell you I'll only try and sell it if your the EXCLUSIVE BROKER. you tell me you are. So I contact a connection of mine to pitch the domain. Turns out they where the exclusive broker and had no idea who you where. I felt like a idiot!!!!!!! But makes me wonder did you try to go around the exclusive broker.

I have you blocked because of this

What if your connection was not the broker and asked you if you were the exclusive broker? I guess you'd tell them you are in touch with the exclusive broker?

Always get a brokerage agreement, also make owners put domains on privacy as well. So you don't have to go thru things like this. This is where most brokers fail they just talk to a owner and ask them a price and just start pitching it

But it sounds like you just talked to a broker, asked them the price, and started pitching the domain to someone new. Couldn't they go to the owner, figure out who the exclusive broker is, and bypass you?

A private conversation taken out of context with a lot of speculation added by people in this thread, and a completely true statement of contract legality.

Again.... Please quote the post where Shane said he would actively entice or convince a seller to break a contract.

I don't really see how "My business is to get the best price for myself and my clients. Bypassing a broker who may or may not have an exclusive contract makes sense. Saves them a commission which therefore saves me or my client money." could be taken out of context.
Can you explain?
In the situation where there is an exclusive broker with a contract... Seems like he would rather do business with unethical owners (hey, it's not his fault the owner is willing to break a contract, right?) than do a deal with a broker which would help build a business relationship.
Fine, the seller could do the deal and then pay the broker their share, but that seems kind of odd. Why wouldn't they just refer the buyer to the broker if they trusted the broker to do their job correctly?
I'm not as experienced as other people here but.. If you are going directly to the owner, I think it's because the broker is doing an awful job but you still really want the domain..
Or you believe that since "money talks," you might be able to do a deal with an unethical seller who is willing to cut out the broker (remember, it's not your fault they choose to do that so it doesn't really matter ). ..Just to save your buyer a bit of money.

Shane did give it a go (try working with this broker)

But the deal quickly hit an impossible impasse when the broker said "I told him owners won't agree to financing options."

Shane's client can only finance the domain.

And "ownerS" plural was typed twice by the OP, that would get my attention.

It quickly reached a point where Shane had to approach the owner himself and ask about financing possiblites and talk to the boss.

Once it hit the point where Shane has to do all the negotiations himself (try to convince the owner(s) to accept finance, price) then there went the broker fee. A finders fee was probably still on the table if things were all smiles.

If the broker tells you that the owner is not willing to finance the domain, doesn't that just tell you to move on to the next domain (and report the person for not reading the WTB thread closely enough..or forgive them)?
If not, at what point do you start trusting what a broker says?
Does the broker have to say "I've asked the owner, and they are 100% not willing to do a financing deal."?
Maybe there needs to be some way of vetting brokers.. so people aren't always worried about liars.

 

[imadoer]

What if your connection was not the broker and asked you if you were the exclusive broker? I guess you'd tell them you are in touch with the exclusive broker?

But it sounds like you just talked to a broker, asked them the price, and started pitching the domain to someone new. Couldn't they go to the owner, figure out who the exclusive broker is, and bypass you?

It sounds like I was set up to be the idiot. I don't get what you don't understand. The guy CONTACTED ME! With a name exclusively brokered by someone else. My buyers respect me enough not to go around me. FYI. I learned a valuable lesson about double brokering only do it when you know the other person has a contract and you trust them and don't get involved with people who don't.

 

[S-B]

It's interesting to see how everyone ignores a post that gives context to my statement.

Maybe if I highlight it some of will you will be forced to respond.

"I'm willing to bet he's fine with financing in the current market . . . It seems if you're representing your interests before his."

 

[Joe N]

I don't really see how "My business is to get the best price for myself and my clients. Bypassing a broker who may or may not have an exclusive contract makes sense. Saves them a commission which therefore saves me or my client money." could be taken out of context.
Can you explain?

Here's my interpretation:

1. The comment in bold was directed at the OP. Thus the underlying meaning is: "You may or may not be the exclusive broker. Bypassing you is in my best interest, as well as your client's." (As in, you are representing yourself as exclusive, but clearly you are not, and you are putting your own interests first).
2. The conversation was private, between Shane and the OP. It was not a general comment.

If there were a conversation shared between Shane and a domain owner, where Shane was telling him to "forget about your exclusive contract, let's make a deal and save you some money", then that would be very different. However there's no evidence of that.

The problem is that a lot of people here are reading this personal conversation as though it were a general statement. The fact is that the comment was directed at the OP alone. And it sounds like the OP came across as pretty damn shady.

 

[promo]

Who is reading between the lines again?

Joesmoe: "If I put in this word here and this word there, then he might have meant something completely different and thats how I see it!"