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?

 

[Joe N]

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!"

The problem is that we're talking guilt versus innocence. You're condemning someone based on pure speculation, when in fact the statement is open to other interpretations. And the one I described makes a hell of a lot more sense.

How would you look if every personal conversation you had was broadcast to the world as though it was your general view on life?

 

[Joe N]

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!"

And don't start name-calling. That's incredibly rude.

 

[equity78]

I place the onus on the owner of the domain, if they value the relationship with the broker they will pay the commission. In the past I have brokered a name where the person spoke with me and got the info, and then emailed the buyer to see if they could do a little better. When the sale completed, the owner paid me 10% because they knew I initiated the conversation, and had sold other names for him.

I think the broker should just contact the owner and say I made contact with Shane Bellone, he might need something I couldn't offer like financing terms.

An honest owner would pay the broker a commission if Shane buys the domain name.

Again IMO

 

[S-B]

The problem with this thread is that most are assuming they know what I meant. I purposely left out context until this post. Oddly enough, it went ignored. Twice.

The problem with brokers is they often think about their payday before they think about the client's needs. Sometimes the income is needed immediately and some brokers only think about how they can get paid the most in the quickest way possible.

A broker -- by definition -- is an assigned party who represents another party's best interests.

 

[NetworkPearl]

Broker is the one who works on selling the domain.

Unethical of the owner if he sells privately.

 

[steitieh]

I place the onus on the owner of the domain, if they value the relationship with the broker they will pay the commission. In the past I have brokered a name where the person spoke with me and got the info, and then emailed the buyer to see if they could do a little better. When the sale completed, the owner paid me 10% because they knew I initiated the conversation, and had sold other names for him.

I think the broker should just contact the owner and say I made contact with Shane Bellone, he might need something I couldn't offer like financing terms.

An honest owner would pay the broker a commission if Shane buys the domain name.

Again IMO

On the spot!!!

Was about to say that - Get Shane out of the equation whether he's ethical or not - a dick or anything for the matter .. If the original seller is honest and the broker (OP) is indeed in good terms with the seller then he should be compensated only by mentioning that he has referred Shane to him. So if the seller is honest he will eventually pay the (OP) the commissions and not Shane.

 

[promo]

The problem with this thread is that most are assuming they know what I meant. I purposely left out context until this post. Oddly enough, it went ignored. Twice.

The problem with brokers is they often think about their payday before they think about the client's needs. Sometimes the income is needed immediately and some brokers only think about how they can get paid the most in the quickest way possible.

A broker -- by definition -- is an assigned party who represents another party's best interests.

Ok Shane, take the cotton out of your mouth and answer me this; do you think it is OK to go around a broker if you know he has an exclusive contract (and try to get the seller to break that contract), solely with the purpose of securing a better price for your buyer?

 

[S-B]

Ok Shane, take the cotton out of your mouth and answer me this; do you think it is OK to go around a broker if you know he has an exclusive contract (and try to get the seller to break that contract), solely with the purpose of securing a better price for your buyer?

Your question is irrelevant. How do you know if a broker has an exclusive contract without first contacting the owner?

 

[promo]

Good.. That is all I wanted to know. Buzz me once you learn straight talk and honesty.

 

[Joe N]

Good.. That is all I wanted to know. Buzz me once you learn straight talk and honesty.

Maybe you should answer his question. Would you really just take someone at their word if they say they have an exclusive contract?

 

[S-B]

Good.. That is all I wanted to know. Buzz me once you learn straight talk and honesty.

You accuse me of having no ethics for "going around" a broker when I simply contacted them to see if financing was an option. In other words, you are insinuating that contacting an owner when they have a broker is bad business. So my question is valid. How do you know if they are an exclusive broker and how do you know the broker is representing their best interests? You take a stranger on the Internet for their word? That's stupidity.

 

[N-A]

Ok Shane, take the cotton out of your mouth and answer me this; do you think it is OK to go around a broker if you know he has an exclusive contract (and try to get the seller to break that contract), solely with the purpose of securing a better price for your buyer?

Even though Shane's response is spot on already, there has been a real estate scenario brought up several times. I think this relates. There are many people (buyers and sellers alike) who would be willing to wait out an exclusive contract if a buyer came along with the intention on bypassing the realtor. There's no difference...

 

[promo]

You must suffer from poor reading comprehension. I asked you a straight question and you gave me a politicians answer.

Please read carefully this time. My question supposed that you KNOW that the broker has an exclusive contract. What would you do in this hypothetical scenario?

 

[S-B]

You must suffer from poor reading comprehension. I asked you a straight question and you gave me a politicians answer.

Please read carefully this time. My question supposed that you KNOW that the broker has an exclusive contract. What would you do in this hypothetical scenario?

I'm failing to understand how a hypothetical situation impacts the ethics involved in a real situation.

You have continued to say that my practices are unethical and now admit that you have no idea what I would do if this situation presented itself.

I think you're a murderer. Not because you've murdered anyone but I suspect in the right situation you would.

 

[promo]

You would be right about that assumption even though I have no idea how you came to it. Not that I am. But I could under the right circumstances. For sure.

However my assumptions are based completely on your posts and subsequent failure to answer our questions in any meaningful manner.

 

[S-B]

You would be right about that assumption even though I have no idea how you came to it. Not that I am. But I could under the right circumstances. For sure.

However my assumptions are based completely on your posts and subsequent failure to answer our questions in any meaningful manner.

I don't owe you an answer. This conversation is based on what did happen not what could have happened.

Keep hoping... I like when people look stupid.

 

[promo]

Yeah I noticed judging by your posts...

 

[Jason.tv]

 

[S-B]

Yeah I noticed judging by your posts...

You have no leg to stand on and have been insulting people regularly because of that.

The fact is I would not encourage someone to break a contract but I would buy a domain from someone who did break a contract.

It's no different than someone here buying Nike shoes. Just because they're made by children doesn't mean you hired children to make your shoes. There's a distinct difference.

 

[promo]

Oh I am insulting you by mirroring your statement back at you?

Boohoo little man. If I wanted to insult you, you would know.

 

[S-B]

Oh I am insulting you by mirroring your statement back at you?

Boohoo little man. If I wanted to insult you, you would know.

Again, the inability to correctly conjure logic in a debate does not grant you the right to insult people. Your assumptions were wrong. Be a man and admit that you made a mistake.

 

[promo]

I certainly would do that if it was the case.

But I do not conjure or have the need for it. I speak straight and read straight. No need for shenanigans and I insult the people I think need it. Its obvious to me what type of person you are, that you have some sycophants in your corner does not alter this. Especially not considering who they are.

 

[mr-x]

that you have some sycophants in your corner does not alter this.

People disagree. Assigning false motives, name calling doesn't make you look professional.

 

[S-B]

I certainly would do that if it was the case.

But I do not conjure or have the need for it. I speak straight and read straight. No need for shenanigans and I insult the people I think need it. Its obvious to me what type of person you are, that you have some sycophants in your corner does not alter this. Especially not considering who they are.

I would like you to bring fact to the table instead of speculation. You can speculate about anything you want. Unfortunately for you, that doesn't make it true. You are simply picking a fight with someone you don't know on a subject that you know anything about. We can all sit here and debate about what someone MIGHT do but we can't speak on it with any authority until it does ACTUALLY happen. There's a word for this... conjecture.

I purposely left this discussion open for interpretation for this long. I could have shut it down immediately but I enjoy watching people speak on subjects they know nothing about.

The fact is, I gave you an answer. The answer didn't match your expectations and now you result to insulting me. That's a reflection of your etiquette and not mine.

 

[promo]

Please. I brought your statement to the table. When you objected at the obvious meaning of your statement, I asked you straight up what you would do.

You refused to answer this and changed the focus elsewhere and upped your phrasing using a higher lix number. Now probably you are used to be able to distract people with tricks like that, but I will hold you to your words. As poor as they are.

The fact is you gave me no answer to the question I posed. You gave me a question in return. Thats all the answer I need from you.