Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

WagwanDeezNutz t1_je5timx wrote

Reply to comment by smellyfrog0811 in Some Guy Bought the Flatiron Building and Didn’t Pay for It by Keikobad

Sure it is. You have a guy locked in at price no other guy was willing to pay. You can run it again and bring out the bottom feeders or try to keep it close to his winning bid and give up a little.

Its poker math

−10

chug84 t1_je6dv59 wrote

Yeah no, they'll just sell it to the runner up and tell the original buyer to fuck themself.

7

MasterChicken52 t1_je81m3i wrote

The runner up doesn’t really want it and couldn’t believe the winner bid as high as he did with all the renovations that need done. So it may go up again, who knows? It will be interesting to see.

I just hope whoever does end up with it respects the history and cultural importance of the building and takes care of it.

3

WagwanDeezNutz t1_je6fr5m wrote

nope. they will offer it to the runner up who will decline to close at his last best bid - probably pretty close to the 190m. he will argue that this chuckle fucker artificially bid it that high with no intent on closing, bringing him along for the ride.

in the end they will run it again

−1

spicytoastaficionado t1_je8evbt wrote

What you're describing is accurate, but it also contradicts your previous "poker math" theory since Garlick will not be allowed to bid in a future auction and is unlikely to be involved w/ future ownership.

So unless you're alleging some sort of shill bidding conspiracy between Garlick and the runner-up (Gural's group), the next winner paying less than $190m doesn't benefit Garlick in any way.

1

spicytoastaficionado t1_je8e43o wrote

That isn't how auctions, especially high-value real estate auctions, operate. There is no post-sale price haggling.

You don't win a $190m auction, stiff the deposit, and then try and negotiate 10% off the sale price.

Jeff Gural's group (which was part of 3/4 of the previous ownership) already declined to exercise his runner-up option because he knows if/when the building goes back up for auction, he could nab it at a much lower price when you take out Garlick's bids.

The "poker math" theory only works if Garlick emerges as the owner and pays significantly less than he bought it for.

In reality, Garlick will be blacklisted from future auctions and the new owner will be the ones paying less than $190m.

1