Steve is the same guy who has previously declared himself out due to crowded marketplaces and fierce competition, he’s good at picking and choosing when his statements apply

@@TheAbuFulaan Crowded marketplace and competition are two different things.

@@TheAbuFulaan In other words, competition is sometimes--not never--a reason to not do business, therefore his statement is false

@@adambpm no mate , you COMPETE with everyone everyday just to BREATHE.... Yet you SURVIVE.... STEVE is right....🔥

@@treymoe2637 when you apply those terms in business , they mean the same thing m8

TS,hahahahhahaha

I dont get it

@@angryrantmansneighbours8470 On the British version of this show, Dragon's Den, there's a Dragon named Touker who has at least one near empty office building. Many times when people make pitches his reply is, "I can offer you office space."

@@magusxxx 😂😂😂😂yea he owns big properties around central London

HAHA

Agree

It's the difference between a competitive market and a saturated one.

I know aye, and they suppose to be the big sharks but they always refer to the competition as a threat and a danger

Well to their credit...I definitely wouldn't want to go into the make-up industry

:) how do you know that?

Karimco Australia which part?

Andrew Knight the guy is still Uber driver 😁?

Him being an Uber driver may not mean they aren't making good money. People often still do that as a side hustle.

Sarah Anderson yer I see that, but if you’re turning over millions as a co founder you’re not going to do 8 hours in a Prius for $90

I can double your revenue in one year.

Exponential 😂😂😂😂😂😂

Bruh

What is that like less than $3 revenue a transaction??

Ever heard of non-competition agreement?

@@07Blackbeard lol exactly, by this logic the consulting companies can put every other company out of business

You would think that's common sense but no such thing as common sense because it's no longer common.

This is the real life version of dumb dumb and dumber.

Liverpool won the premier league.

no hes not. only a fraction of his deals on the show go through to actual deals

numi numful facts

numi numful nah they go through don’t they? He just gets paid back and gets free equity....

@@timhuang2501 no no they dont automatically go through. they have to go via another step. "due dilligence" step and at that point the big majority of them are falling www.smartcompany.com.au/entrepreneurs/mk-steve-baxter-reveals-reasons-behind-low-shark-tank-success-rate/

Correct. However in 2017, Steve didn’t pay out a single investment he made on the show that entire year.

Smart move. Creamy peanut butter... c'mon!

That's because you're not satisfying her in bed.

P C you’re right, I should probably stop using all my energy on your mom.

that is grounds for divorce my Man

🤣🤣🤣🤣

Yeah but Glen is the richest there

It's a reality tv show, the producers want conflict and would encourage it. Steve always dishes it back at them anyway and you can normally see him laughing, at the end of the day it's a reality tv show.

Fun Fact: In 2017 Steve didn’t pay out a single deal he made on the show.

It wasn't that funny, but yes, I agree. They took so long to make a counter offer of 1% less.

It was so he wouldn't have the highest stake, which would mean he would run the business and have final say. They had only 87% of the company to start.

@@wishtheworldwasdifferent8235 Having 21% of a business doesn't give anyone, in their own right, a final say, even if others have less than he does.

you do realise they can share their shares inbetween each other to outpower steve? who says that when the 20% is gonna taken off them its gonna be equal 1:1:1. they can decide one to lose only 2% and the other guys 9% for example leaving one at 27% share

@@manuel1232324 Its actually 30% being taken off from them (20% by Steve and 10% for the new tech cofounder). And generally, one out of them would not want to part with more equity while the other one is holding on to theirs. Most probably it'll be 1:1:1 dilution (thats how cap tables work out in most cases). There's nothing wrong with Steve being the largest shareholder, I'm just wondering if these guys thought this through in the studio? 😋

@@karansarin1986 i know but i was refering to your 20% statement refering to steve. if they rly wouldnt want steve to lead they would need to decide on one big share holder that is not so uncommon given they could arrange a royalty pact or something similar. but why would u not let someone with way more experience lead such a business if you can alrdy hold only a max of 30% and then go on a show like this seeking investment for equity while if they only needed money a loan at a bank is always the better option. so i dont argue that they wouldnt have taken that in mind since having an unsucessful business with big shares is still less profitable than less share/royalty with a sucessful one.

So if we look like the Hangover movie series - who is the short fat one? 😂😂

@@danielfranco85 there's still that tech cofounder to be found right? thats what the movie would be about 🤪like hangover 1

What Glen was saying..

😂😂😂

I think you're mixing Janine with Naomi

She’s all talk

she's very niche, she typically invests into thing she thinks would be popular gifting items that she could boost with Red Balloon

That could be said for everyone on the show. In 2017, 50 businesses appeared on the show but only 4 of those businesses actually proceeded with investments after the show.

Hahah that’s one way to describe me ;)

@Devon Holmes that's for me to know only :)

@@danielfranco85 Seems like the kind of guy that would go camping every other weekend to "unwind" from society, whilst blasting triple J...

@@danielfranco85 Am I right that we may not hear the end of this particular remark?

I think this may need to be my new Linkedin tagline.

I agree. In fact, if I was Air BnB, or Expedia, or Booking, I would be looking at something like this. Either add it to the main website, or create a sub brand.

From what I understand about the rules of the show, the sharks are not allowed to offer less money than asked for. They can ask for more equity, but they can't counteroffer with less money.

@Ryan Stallard i really didnt know there was rules

@@xaviergarza9414 There are a few episodes where the sharks do refer to rules they have to follow. One of the rules is that they can't counteroffer with lower money. This is impactful because it means that even if the business and the sharks find out in the course of a pitch that the business needs less money than originally asked for, the sharks have to go "out" rather than just simply give them the lower amount.

@@EstrellaViajeViajero Wow that is a very stupid rule

Because their space can be viewed by people that don't know or frequent that Cafe.

@@zackshannon834 which is fair, but the pitch did not suggest there was alot of people book from out of town. Unless I was getting out of town bookings, I would not be paying them their cut.

@@ianlister7333 the adverts on the cafe windows are promoting the website not any particular space.

but its in that window because there is a room to rent by the owners of that room. Its not impossible to book rooms like this in cafes, or pub, you speak to the manager. For me to paying a middle man their cut, they have to provide access to a market I cant, and the market of people already sat in my cafe, I dont need them for.

​@@ianlister7333 How many people sitting in your cafe are aware that hiring is an option? There's a lot of overhead in creating and maintaining an online bookings platform, let alone receiving payments online, SEO, managing availabilities, legal receipts, etc. If I, as a customer, have to call and give my credit card number over the phone to make a booking or drive out to the place to speak to the manager, I would look somewhere else. Also, keep in mind that this is a pitch to investors, their pitch towards cafe owners probably starts here: www.spacetoco.com/learn/hosts

lol ... totally

...and a little bit less dodgy than him. Well a lot actually.

@@danielfranco85 Are those dreadlocks maintained on company time?

@@mrfrase3 I certainly hope not...

@@mrfrase3 you don't get to look this good without stealing a bit of company time

so many people with very cool ideas :)

21% was more than their eventual share each (20), so he would have had an ownership control in the business.

@@boxtapephonemobile1621 their share was 29%

@@matan7899 hello? Once the shark takes 20%, their shares are worth 22% each and that is before they sacrifice 10% for tech co-founder. You are way off. Who owns the other 13% originally they didn't say.

Hex pegs. That's the name of the company in which Andrew says that right before the guy walks out to talk to his wife.

Do American companies not want to expand to other countries too? My favourite is dragons den though, It´s always calm and collected. Shark Tank the American version is only filled with screaming. Everyone is always Talking over each other. They are always trying to ask questions at the same time. Then they get offended when their question wasn´t chosen to be answered first.

Chrome Firefox Australian companies want to go to America more than American ones want to go to Australia. American Shark Tank actually makes deals. Most of the deals on Australia don’t go through. That’s partly why it’s cancelled😂

Yes. I was confused. Their pronounciation of space is spice

We've got 130 spaces across NZ and over 1000 in Aus - so a little more than 250 :)

@@ellebell477 When I did a search of Sydney, Brisbane and Melbourne, very few sites came up. You must have a lot in Perth.

Thank you for making me conscious

He definitely did!

It depends, if each founders have board seats which means they the right to vote, if Steve says A and the other three says B then the majority of vote will win for sure. But yes, Steve has more equity than the rest lol and it feels like he's the boss lol

So there’s not just these 3 people??? + Steve So they’ got some silent partners perhaps?

Just because you have the most shares doesn't mean you're the boss. It's not like he owns 51%. He can easily get out voted on decisions. Also they can buy out those other 13% investors to gain more shares if needed...but they really won't have to.

@@CaptureKing247 How would they buy out those investors? It seems like they don't have any cash of their own, or they'd have already invested it to keep higher equity in the company. Either that, or they don't really believe in their own evaluation.

That's not how majority holding works...

Giggling over an accent... they are Australian what did you expect?😒🙄

You can’t do math. Cause it’s 1.5

Anything and everything; could be a poetry reading, yes.

He told that there are two reasons deals are not going through. 1st is that numbers those people said in the tank didn’t add up in reality and 2nd is that people back up because they just wanted a publicity

Where would the space Go if it was spacetoGo?

Checkout the backstory here: www.spacetoco.com/about

Haha. Right you are!

I'm ready to buy once it does 👍

@@eduardoramon5737 buy digital Real estate 😉

@@danielp28 I bought an apartment in GTA V. Does that count?

You do realise all these episodes are a few yrs old. Shark tank australia stopped filming in 2018 😂

Countered offered with 20%, but no extra 10+ to take in another guy.

@@fpsjohn111 My understanding was that that condition was accepted; the only change presented by their counteroffer was the lowering of the 21% to 20%. That was enough to leave them bigger shareholders individually than Steve, due to the way the dilution mechanics worked (whereas the reverse would have been true had they accepted Steve's offer), so it was a bigger deal in this specific case than "shaving off 1%" would usually be.

But he has a tech guy!

@@LarryfromPH A *brilliant* tech guy :)

Mmmmm, more like WeLearn, WeVenue, WeEvent, WeMeet, WeCelebrate, WeDance, WeFitness, WeWedding etc.... waaaay more than just work and not located downtown only.

@@jeremyhurst6460 Agreed.

@@jeremyhurst6460 SpacetoWe though might get misconstrued

@@ellebell477 what about SpacetoWeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

@@ellebell477 ha ha for sure!

Do they? They wanted to give up 14% and ended at 20%. I bet Steve know more about that then you and he decided that these ACTUAL earnings were worthy of 1kk $ evaluation.

Yeah, there's nothing like "in 3 years, the equity you bought will finally be worth the same as the money you invested". Telling an investor they'll break even in 3 years (actually a slight loss with inflation) is not a good sales pitch when the valuation is probably what the business will be worth at its peak.

@@EstrellaViajeViajero As i said before. I'm pretty sure Steve know his business better then you.

@@EstrellaViajeViajero The valuation of the company is a lot higher today than it was back then. It's all about the risk that the growth can get there and the stability of the market they're in, which city councils are very stable.

They actually write notes.. Smh

They can't pretend that lol they often repeat what they say.

They usually make B-roll footage of them taking notes, pretending to intently listen, make a weird expression, etc... and then inject that into the actual pitch to make it look more interesting.