Would be interesting to see how well a collective of wealthy individuals could run a club. Initially seems problematic in getting them all agree but having endured the autocratic and narcissistic tenure of the current owner it may prove to be a good thing.
Rather than too many cooks it could be healthy and balanced and draw on different experiences and contacts rather than being the failed experiment of a megalomaniac.
Would be interesting to see how well a collective of wealthy individuals could run a club. Initially seems problematic in getting them all agree but having endured the autocratic and narcissistic tenure of the current owner it may prove to be a good thing.
Rather than too many cooks it could be healthy and balanced and draw on different experiences and contacts rather than being the failed experiment of a megalomaniac.
How was the ownership split in the Curbs years? What was the highest % one individual had?
Would be interesting to see how well a collective of wealthy individuals could run a club. Initially seems problematic in getting them all agree but having endured the autocratic and narcissistic tenure of the current owner it may prove to be a good thing.
Rather than too many cooks it could be healthy and balanced and draw on different experiences and contacts rather than being the failed experiment of a megalomaniac.
Too many cooks or many hands make light work.
We had multiple directors in the 90s and 2000s and one owner under Michael Glisten.
Seems to me that Muir wants everything lined up and has a clear five year or longer plan. Get commitment from a group of investors so the money stream is secure, get clear title, own all the assets and only then buy.
Frustrating in the short term for we fans but maybe the right thing in the long term.
So a respected banking institution don’t have confidence enough in our finances to release money for financial services rendered to the club and have a genuine concern that CAFC might not be able to fulfill its league obligation.
It was a good week predicated from James Seed and 450 posts since I last looked at this thread. Was it a good week, other than the England football team ? Is there any news on getting thread of Duchatelet and has anything happened apart from people getting angry and frustrated at the time the whole bloody thing is taking ?
No. People are still insisting that the Ozzies are going to pay £1-2m interest to pay up debentures for free title rather than wait until we are in the Prem. Others insist RD can't sell until they are settled. Some speculate that these multi-millionaires and their expensive legal teams have only just found out about directors loans despite them being in the public domain without DD. The more deluded insist Muir hasn't the funds.
On a further update, morons are speculating that DD issues mean that we are on the verge of bancrupcy despite RD being worth half a billion and financial experts explaining that banks don't advance money on services yet to be provided.
Well, banks have been doing that with football clubs for years and to my certain knowledge still are, mainly because it’s not their money to withhold.
Well that's my point but posters are saying it is because we are in financial crisis.
The point is that Charlton ARE being singled out because of their circumstances, although it’s not accurate to say there is a financial crisis.
The bank is taking a view of the risk it faces of paying refunds under the consumer credit act in the event of a default by the club. Whether its view of that risk is realistic is another matter, but that is the issue.
To confirm my understanding was correct I asked the financial officer of another EFL club and he confirmed that it is not standard practice to drip feed season ticket money paid by credit card “except when they think there is s serious financial risk”.
That risk, in this case, is presumably caused by uncertainty over ownership rather than any prospect of imminent collapse, but even RD’s rep said that he’d never come across such a thing before.
The other thing I would say is that severe restrictions were proposed by merchant services providers in the past and negotiated off the table by the then Charlton management. It’s unclear when this situation first arose and whether the current regime had the experience or tenacity to face it down. They may just have accepted what the bank proposed, including because they expected it to become someone else’s problem.
Would be interesting if anyone here knows someone in the Aussie camp and could ask if the statements are consistent with their knowledge of things. Not l necessarily after details just a yes or no response (but with the obvious follow up questions if the answer is no!)
If only we had someone on this forum who knows one of the Aussies...
I've asked the question, and if I get an answer I'll post it on here first.
Reply came, and the relevant bit is rather bland I’m afraid, although I guess it might be seen as positive?
“spoke to Lieven today and he was very happy. Talk soon.”
Sorry folks, better than nothing....
His three day working week ended this afternoon :-)
Well he doesn't get paid much to be fair.
Little bit of extra news (personal), which I can't share makes me now certain this is happening. I think we all knew that though didn't we?
Andrew Muir renting your spare room til he builds his new house?
Has to be at least a couple of weeks away doesn’t it ? Paperwork still to be lodged with the EFL and time for that to be checked, returned and contract signed if everything works out. Might well be very close to Bowyer getting confirmation of permanent manager he spoke about come August ?
Sorry Rick but your post directly contradicts the one you posted immediately above. While I appreciate your inside info and fanzine, you are speculating again and many of your ITK observations have proved to be just that. Was your contact a CCC or L1? There is a difference. Stripe, PayPal, Worldpay, Paypoint, Shopify, Sage, 1st Data? All may have different protocols. They are not banks per sè. You are commenting on an issue raised by RD's lackey. If it was a problem at the club, why didn't your contacts appraise you sooner? Also, see Stig's contribution a few pages back.
You misread the post. I am not speculating. You said that “banks” (your description) never advance payments in this situation and hence that “morons” thinking there is anything unusual here are wrong.
In fact it has been standard practice for many years to forward the season ticket funds on receipt to my personal knowledge. I spoke to someone with 20 years experience of multiple L1 clubs in exactly this area - and still involved today - to check it is still the case and he confirmed that it is still standard practice to do so. He is someone who does the deal and manages the cash flow based on the income, not a junior employee.
One thing about working in football is that you get to know people at other clubs and everyone knows each other’s business and compares notes. Clubs help each other out in areas where they don’t compete and learn from each other if they have a problem or things change. If he says it’s not typical “unless they think there is serious financial risk” then it isn’t, because he will know.
How does my credit card company know what purchase I make to withhold monies from the company I made a purchase with?
My spend with the Club could be ST money, but it just might have easily be Club shop purchases, hospitality purchases or sponsorship.
If the Club has a separate accounting system for ticket office purchases, my credit card spend could well be on a dozen match tickets for the next home game rather than from a ST purchase. Or a 'Jackson 5' - would they drip feed that?
How does my credit card company know what purchase I make to withhold monies from the company I made a purchase with?
My spend with the Club could be ST money, but it just might have easily be Club shop purchases, hospitality purchases or sponsorship.
If the Club has a separate accounting system for ticket office purchases, my credit card spend could well be on a dozen match tickets for the next home game rather than from a ST purchase. Or a 'Jackson 5' - would they drip feed that?
Sounds a load of old baloney to me.
Different merchant code for the box office, standard procedure for most places to have different sub accounts for different business units.
How does my credit card company know what purchase I make to withhold monies from the company I made a purchase with?
My spend with the Club could be ST money, but it just might have easily be Club shop purchases, hospitality purchases or sponsorship.
If the Club has a separate accounting system for ticket office purchases, my credit card spend could well be on a dozen match tickets for the next home game rather than from a ST purchase. Or a 'Jackson 5' - would they drip feed that?
Sounds a load of old baloney to me.
Different merchant code for the box office, standard procedure for most places to have different sub accounts for different business units.
OK - so how do you identify the difference between a ST, a block of tickets for a single match or as I said a 'special' like The Jackson Five?
When I bought mine with Barclaycard for their zero percent offer for life for football STs many moons ago, they initially added interest as they had no way of identifying the purchase as a ST purchase. I had to send them proof.
How does my credit card company know what purchase I make to withhold monies from the company I made a purchase with?
My spend with the Club could be ST money, but it just might have easily be Club shop purchases, hospitality purchases or sponsorship.
If the Club has a separate accounting system for ticket office purchases, my credit card spend could well be on a dozen match tickets for the next home game rather than from a ST purchase. Or a 'Jackson 5' - would they drip feed that?
Sounds a load of old baloney to me.
Different merchant code for the box office, standard procedure for most places to have different sub accounts for different business units.
OK - so how do you identify the difference between a ST, a block of tickets for a single match or as I said a 'special' like The Jackson Five?
There are a number of different phases to a transaction on either credit or debit cards. (I'm guessing this issue the club is having will also apply to debit card transactions for season tickets because of the debit card chargeback scheme.)
But in a nutshell there will be a "payment service provider" who organises the transaction either through an in-shop terminal or on-line. And an "acquirer", which may or may not be the same as the payment service provider. The acquirer will have a contract with the merchant and effectively set up a line of credit.
The acquirer is responsible for receiving transaction details once they’ve been collected by the payment service provider.
It then passes them through the card scheme and to the issuer. The acquirer also receives the payment from the card issuer and pays it into the retailer’s bank account (less fees).
So, in the event that goods or services are not provided, that whole process would be unwound. You would claim off your card issuer who would, in turn claim off the acquirer, who would claim back off the retailer (if it was still trading). Risk flags start flying if 1% or more of transcations are reversed or charged back.
So, it will be the acquirer (almost certainly a bank) that is getting nervous. It is they, not the almost countless credit card issuers, as @Rothko said, that are requiring Charlton to put some transaction identifier on payments off credit (and debit?) cards that provides them with a means of identifying the purpose of the transaction.
There is no reason why a punter should see this on a statement and your card company couldn't care. Which is why @Addickted had to show proof to Barclaycard.
It's no surprise to me that Muir doesn't want a majority stake. If he had wanted one, I should imagine that there has been ample opportunity to do so. Especially when one considers the rumours about delays, due to investors withdrawing/being excluded etc etc and then needing to search for replacement investors.
Comments
Rather than too many cooks it could be healthy and balanced and draw on different experiences and contacts rather than being the failed experiment of a megalomaniac.
“You can have a three-year deal – but if you don’t win games then you get the sack, simple as that.”
I like Bowyer
We had multiple directors in the 90s and 2000s and one owner under Michael Glisten.
Seems to me that Muir wants everything lined up and has a clear five year or longer plan. Get commitment from a group of investors so the money stream is secure, get clear title, own all the assets and only then buy.
Frustrating in the short term for we fans but maybe the right thing in the long term.
WIOTOS
In fact it has been standard practice for many years to forward the season ticket funds on receipt to my personal knowledge. I spoke to someone with 20 years experience of multiple L1 clubs in exactly this area - and still involved today - to check it is still the case and he confirmed that it is still standard practice to do so. He is someone who does the deal and manages the cash flow based on the income, not a junior employee.
One thing about working in football is that you get to know people at other clubs and everyone knows each other’s business and compares notes. Clubs help each other out in areas where they don’t compete and learn from each other if they have a problem or things change. If he says it’s not typical “unless they think there is serious financial risk” then it isn’t, because he will know.
And is desperate to please Henry.
My spend with the Club could be ST money, but it just might have easily be Club shop purchases, hospitality purchases or sponsorship.
If the Club has a separate accounting system for ticket office purchases, my credit card spend could well be on a dozen match tickets for the next home game rather than from a ST purchase. Or a 'Jackson 5' - would they drip feed that?
Sounds a load of old baloney to me.
But in a nutshell there will be a "payment service provider" who organises the transaction either through an in-shop terminal or on-line. And an "acquirer", which may or may not be the same as the payment service provider. The acquirer will have a contract with the merchant and effectively set up a line of credit.
The acquirer is responsible for receiving transaction details once they’ve been collected by the payment service provider.
It then passes them through the card scheme and to the issuer. The acquirer also receives the payment from the card issuer and pays it into the retailer’s bank account (less fees).
So, in the event that goods or services are not provided, that whole process would be unwound. You would claim off your card issuer who would, in turn claim off the acquirer, who would claim back off the retailer (if it was still trading). Risk flags start flying if 1% or more of transcations are reversed or charged back.
So, it will be the acquirer (almost certainly a bank) that is getting nervous. It is they, not the almost countless credit card issuers, as @Rothko said, that are requiring Charlton to put some transaction identifier on payments off credit (and debit?) cards that provides them with a means of identifying the purpose of the transaction.
There is no reason why a punter should see this on a statement and your card company couldn't care. Which is why @Addickted had to show proof to Barclaycard.
If he had wanted one, I should imagine that there has been ample opportunity to do so.
Especially when one considers the rumours about delays, due to investors withdrawing/being excluded etc etc and then needing to search for replacement investors.