Comments on: SnapNames Reinstates Auction History Back to 2004

By: Auction Info About Domain Name Wire Â» News Â» SnapNames Reinstates Auction History … News

Mon, 09 Nov 2009 04:42:05 +0000

[...] Read More [...]

By: John Berryhill

John Berryhill — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 00:37:22 +0000

“I would think Oversee would want some money out of Brady and maybe others.”

That’s one of the interesting angles on this thing. For as much fun as everyone seems to have beating up on Oversee, the extent to which Oversee was itself ripped off by the inflated sales figures is not known.

By: Rob Sequin

Rob Sequin — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 15:47:38 +0000

FYI, I’m surprised that out of 362 auctions I was in going back to 2004, Halvarez didn’t win ANY but he did cost me over $1000 in inflated pricing according to Rust.

So, to me this seems to be a clear case of shill bidding to inflate prices which means higher revenue figures therefore inflating the valuation of Snapnames prior to the Oversee purchase. Also, perhaps he got bonuses based on revenue targets.

Did he act alone? Maybe but if he was inflating the revenue then I would think the VP of Sales and/or the CFO and/or the CEO would have known or perhaps should have known.

Assuming he had stock, raising the valuation of the company would put more money in his pocket than whatever domain sales revenue he got from selling to iReit.

I would think Oversee would want some money out of Brady and maybe others.

By: SnapNames Bid History Is Now Transparent | Domain Name News | Domain News | Expired Domains

Sun, 08 Nov 2009 13:11:17 +0000

[...] wrote to Andrew over at DomainNameWire with the following note citing that hiding of bid histories wasn’t some knee jerk reaction as [...]

By: Greg

Greg — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 08:36:05 +0000

Acro is right this is total BS. I started after 2005 and had access to several years of history for a while.

By: Adam

Adam — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 06:58:53 +0000

This is not false Acro. The history has been on a rolling 24 month for a long time if you were paying attention. I noticed awhile back and asked Halvarez about it myself.

By: Anon

Anon — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 04:56:22 +0000

I’m old enough to remember Tylenol bottles getting poisoned. They came out, admitted it, got respect and survived a disaster.

McDonald’s a few years ago completely blew off the documentary “super size me” and survived by not being defensive.

SnapNames is clearly trying to take a play from those books and attack with truth and honesty. The problem is, there is a fundamental difference. SnapNames is guilty of more than 100 million dollar of negligence. They can’t win. The PR firm they hired was wrong trying to tell them to pretend they are Tylenol or McDonald’s. In reality, they are OJ Simpson. They need to deny, deny, deny and hope to god they can do good enough in court to survive. More than likely, Monte’s tendon will be ironically linked to Oversee’s Achilles tendon, class action law suit.

Oversee can’t win. We all know that they suck at due diligence. They can’t argue that they thought everything was fine and did enough homework to know better. There is historical proof that they didn’t do homework, ever.. If that company was good at checking records, they wouldn’t have bought snapnames when they didn’t have an air-tight contract with NetSol or Moniker when they didn’t have the TRAFFIC trade shows locked down. History has already proven they never did homework which means they are negligent and guilty.

The house is burning to the ground for all of us to watch.