What have Zach and Jeremy Roloff publicly said, in detail, about why the farm deals collapsed?
Executive summary
Zach Roloff has publicly blamed his father Matt for collapsing the farm deals, accusing Matt of manipulation, misrepresentation and setting an unaffordable price — and has said he regrets the dispute playing out on television [1] [2] [3]. Jeremy, together with his wife Audrey, has framed the failed deal differently: they called Matt’s proposal “super unreasonable,” said they “fought as hard as we could,” and described the negotiations as contentious rather than a refusal to buy [3].
1. Zach’s central charge: manipulation, cowardice and a price too high
Zach’s clearest public statements center on accusing Matt of manipulating the narrative and of using public posts to portray the twins as uninterested, a characterization Zach called “extremely misguided and false” and later labeled a “new shocking low of cowardice and manipulation” aimed at the family [1] [2]. Multiple outlets report Zach pushed back on Matt’s social-media explanation that “my twin boys decided not to consider working together,” saying instead that he and Jeremy had been interested but could not practically meet Matt’s selling terms and that the father’s posts misrepresented their positions [4] [1] [5]. Zach has also said the family meeting about the sale “did not go well” — an exchange that he described as “bad” on camera — and that he was unhappy the matter was played out publicly on Little People, Big World [6] [3].
2. Jeremy and Audrey: ‘super unreasonable’ deal and active resistance
Jeremy and Audrey Roloff answered Matt’s public explanation by directly calling the offer “super unreasonable” and insisting they “fought as hard as we could” to secure some outcome, signaling that they attempted negotiations rather than opting out [3]. Their public remarks contrast with Matt’s assertion that his sons had “moved on to other interests and investments,” with Jeremy/Audrey portraying the collapse as the result of a deal structure or terms they could not accept rather than a lack of interest [3] [4].
3. The twins’ practical barrier: unwilling or unable to partner on a joint buy
Several accounts cite a practical dynamic the twins have acknowledged: neither Zach nor Jeremy wanted to or could take on the property together, and Matt’s asking price — reported across outlets — was beyond what either twin could afford alone, which created an impasse when a joint purchase was not pursued [5] [4]. Coverage that synthesizes their statements and show footage portrays this as a combination of high price, family logistics, and the twins’ separate lives and investments, not solely personal animus [5] [7].
4. Regret, avoidance and family fallout: how Zach frames the public cost
Beyond transactional complaints, Zach has expressed regret that negotiations and the rift “aired” on television, saying the public nature of the dispute was harmful; Tori Roloff later said the family “tries to avoid” the farm because of the strain, indicating the public conflict has had ongoing personal consequences [3] [8]. Reporting also records Zach’s social-media calls that painted Matt’s narrative as manipulative right before new seasons aired, suggesting Zach believes publicity timing worsened the rupture [1].
5. Contrasting narrative: Matt’s account and independent reporting
Matt has repeatedly asserted his reason for selling a portion of Roloff Farms was that his sons would not cooperate on a joint purchase and had “moved on,” a claim he posted publicly and that precipitated the twins’ rebuttals [4] [1]. Independent reportage summarizes both sides: outlets note feelings of betrayal and disappointment expressed publicly by various family members and describe a negotiation breakdown driven by both interpersonal distrust and concrete disagreements over price and structure [7] [9].
6. What the public record does not show
Available reporting documents the public statements and social-media posts by Zach, Jeremy, Audrey and Matt, but full private negotiation documents, precise offers/counters, and confidential meeting transcripts are not in the public record cited here; therefore assertions about exact dollar terms or every negotiation move cannot be verified from these sources [3] [5].