Quote:
Originally Posted by Scanner
Yes but 2 against 1 is good.
I think of a successful partnership I know of w/ my best friend.
It's an ISP - my friend is 20% partner. He's in charge of the technical aspect of the business.
Then, there's the marketing guy - he's 40% partner. He markets and sells the business.
THen, there's the "moneybags/executive" who's been in small business for years, fairly rich, and had 10-30 employees. He handles day to day operations and is the executive (hires/fires, handles loans, payroll, legal aspects).
When there is an impasse on business, the partners call a vote.
Sometimes it's 40/40 against the 20.
Sometimes its 40/20 against 40.
The thing is there is never a stalemate and business gets done. Each person has their respective domain and administers the business therein. Sometimes the marketing and techie vote against the executive or any combination thereof.
My friend has been happy being 20% partner.
My take is most people have immature views on what a partnership is all about. A partnership doesn't always mean 50/50 and it probably shouldn't most of the time.
|
Ok.... what happens with the 49/51 parnership when it's the one with the larger ratio that is causing the failure (for whatever reason)? Or even the person with the smaller ratio inadvertently causes the failure? We'd still have the other partner trying to pickup the pieces.
And with the 40/40/20 partnership, even one of the 40's having a financial catastrophe might cause the whole business to fail and your friend the 20% interest person would lose too.
The OP only said there was a problem with the other partner and that there's no money. Partnerships fail when they are in complete agreement over how things should be handled as well. The ratio only matters in voting decisions; but businesses can and do fail even when handled properly.
What matters is that there's people without any income and they need to get jobs that pay anything so that they can talk with their creditors. They need to cut their losses and move on.