Buying with a sibling

ScorpiondeRooftrouser

nb73 wrote: »

OK.

Oh, it still says the same thing.

Why are you so certain that there will be a bad outcome?

For all the same reasons as anyone else; because he has tied up money as a business investment in something that somebody else is using as a home and won't be able to treat on a strictly business level. it's a recipe for disaster.

However, what has that got to do with it being a sibling? You don't seem able to understanding I am disputing the fact that you claimed I thought siblings going into business would be a bad idea. Whether THIS would be a bad idea is not the point. if he had announced his intention of investing in Mr Smith's house and I had said "That would be stupid", it doesn't follow I object to people dong business with men named Smith.

nb73

Scorpion, again, here's what you wrote:

ScorpiondeRooftrouser wrote: »

If you choose to do it, it will go wrong and you will lose out and fall out with your sibling.

Why? How do you know this?

Had you written "could" go wrong, or even "could well" go wrong - then I'd agree. It is the sweeping nature of your statement that I disagree with. Because actually there is a chance it will work out fine, despite the various pitfalls that have been raised.

marksoton

nb73 wrote: »

Scorpion, again, here's what you wrote:



Why? How do you know this?

Had you written "could" go wrong, or even "could well" go wrong - then I'd agree. It is the sweeping nature of your statement that I disagree with. Because actually there is a chance it will work out fine, despite the various pitfalls that have been raised.

Because history would suggest that outcome.

There's a chance i'll win the lottery. Stop being a pedant idiot.

nb73

Mark - you wouldn't do it, scorpion wouldn't do it, I wouldn't do it. Doesn't mean the OP shouldn't do it. We know nothing about their motives or their family dynamics.

Person_one

nb73 wrote: »

Mark - you wouldn't do it, scorpion wouldn't do it, I wouldn't do it. Doesn't mean the OP shouldn't do it. We know nothing about their motives or their family dynamics.

No, but they've posted here to ask for people's opinions, so people have said what they think about the idea. I don't think there's any requirement to qualify posts with 'but/could/might/only my opinion and of course its up to you' etc etc or they become a bit pointless!

AdrianC

nb73 wrote: »

Mark - you wouldn't do it, scorpion wouldn't do it, I wouldn't do it. Doesn't mean the OP shouldn't do it. We know nothing about their motives or their family dynamics.

We know that they can't even come to an amicable agreement about ownership split without external assistance.

ScorpiondeRooftrouser

nb73 wrote: »

Scorpion, again, here's what you wrote:



Why? How do you know this?

Had you written "could" go wrong, or even "could well" go wrong - then I'd agree. It is the sweeping nature of your statement that I disagree with. Because actually there is a chance it will work out fine, despite the various pitfalls that have been raised.

No, it isn't. You started telling me how the Barclay brothers had worked well together and saying how siblings can go into business. Why are you now pretending you didn't; anyone can read back and see it?

On your second point, which is NOT the point you raised originally, then of course there's a chance things will work out. Just not a chance worth taking.

If you are going to reply again please address the issue of your claim that I said siblings can't go into business together. You have ignored it completely since raising it, because you know you are wrong, and are pretending you said something else. it's ridiculous.

ScorpiondeRooftrouser

nb73 wrote: »

Mark - you wouldn't do it, scorpion wouldn't do it, I wouldn't do it. Doesn't mean the OP shouldn't do it. We know nothing about their motives or their family dynamics.

Family dynamics has nothing to do with it.

You shouldn't do this with ANYONE!

You really can't get past the "sibling" business, can you?

nb73

Scorpion - I don't understand what you mean. Why do you think I claimed that you said siblings can't go into business together? You didn't say that.

The OP specifically asked for, was advice about splitting the proceeds on sale. They didn't ask whether the idea was good (we all seem to agree it is a generally bad idea).

Pointing out blind spots is a really valuable part of forums like this. But I am not surprised that the OP appeared offended by the tone of your post ("It's not my money and I don't care about you") and blunt assertion that all will inevitably go wrong.

The reason I replied was because I disagree. There are plenty examples of successful sibling partnerships- that was my point.

ScorpiondeRooftrouser

nb73 wrote: »

Scorpion - I don't understand what you mean. Why do you think I claimed that you said siblings can't go into business together? You didn't say that.

The OP specifically asked for, was advice about splitting the proceeds on sale. They didn't ask whether the idea was good (we all seem to agree it is a generally bad idea).

Pointing out blind spots is a really valuable part of forums like this. But I am not surprised that the OP appeared offended by the tone of your post ("It's not my money and I don't care about you") and blunt assertion that all will inevitably go wrong.

The reason I replied was because I disagree. There are plenty examples of successful sibling partnerships- that was my point.

Gahh. You've in your first sentence said that you weren't claiming I said siblings can't work together.

Then in your last sentence you have said that you disagreed with me, and your point was that siblings can work well together.

If you can't see you've just contradicted yourself there, I give up.