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.
Coming to this a little late. However, it is frankly ridiculous to imagine withholding season ticket receipts is anything but an exceptional practice. The primary reason season tickets are put on sale as early as they are is to help with cash flow when cash income would otherwise be at its lowest. If it was normal practice to withhold, clubs wouldnt get through the summer.
It strikes me that the bank are looking at the current situation of the club and are addressing the risk that cash is released and taken out of the business rather than provisioned against commitments (e.g. wages, supplier invoices), something that may ultimately render the club insolvent if an unpaid supplier opts to head to court. This doesn't mean the club is in a parlous financial situation, it does mean that the bank considers the sum of the current complexities a risk that needs mitigating.
My understanding is that we are only talking about income from season ticket sales where credit cards have been used as payment. The banks cannot withhold money received on ticket sales where the payment method is cash, cheque or Debit Card.
I wonder what proportion of season ticket sales are paid for using a credit card?
I think you can rule out cash and cheque as relatively trivial by volume in 2018, although the club’s assertion it was still (unlawfully) charging a fee for credit cards will have put off some. Although “credit cards” was stated it may well extend to debit cards because of the (weaker) legal protection they offer.
I paid for mine with a credit card without any surcharge.
(Had to renew my seat early or would have faced a double increase because of the re-zoning of some seats.)
Yes, I meant that by putting it in the publicity they would have deterred some people from using credit cards, even though it is now unlawful to levy the charge.
While we're on the subject of season tickets and takeovers. If a takeover happened tomorrow, what would be the chances of actually scoring a couple of season tickets in time to use them for the first home game? Would the process move at the speed of a Keohane managed development of Sparrows Lane?
You could buy a season ticket on the morning of August 11th and use it that afternoon - you could buy one online on August 10th and collect it on August 11th. You might want to allow more tIme in case of internal club error but obviously that doesn’t need to be anything like four weeks.
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.
Coming to this a little late. However, it is frankly ridiculous to imagine withholding season ticket receipts is anything but an exceptional practice. The primary reason season tickets are put on sale as early as they are is to help with cash flow when cash income would otherwise be at its lowest. If it was normal practice to withhold, clubs wouldnt get through the summer.
It strikes me that the bank are looking at the current situation of the club and are addressing the risk that cash is released and taken out of the business rather than provisioned against commitments (e.g. wages, supplier invoices), something that may ultimately render the club insolvent if an unpaid supplier opts to head to court. This doesn't mean the club is in a parlous financial situation, it does mean that the bank considers the sum of the current complexities a risk that needs mitigating.
My understanding is that we are only talking about income from season ticket sales where credit cards have been used as payment. The banks cannot withhold money received on ticket sales where the payment method is cash, cheque or Debit Card.
I wonder what proportion of season ticket sales are paid for using a credit card?
I think you can rule out cash and cheque as relatively trivial by volume in 2018, although the club’s assertion it was still (unlawfully) charging a fee for credit cards will have put off some. Although “credit cards” was stated it may well extend to debit cards because of the (weaker) legal protection they offer.
I would be astounded if banks were allowed to withhold monies paid via debit cards. Surely the money goes directly from the payee's account into the club's account.
While we're on the subject of season tickets and takeovers. If a takeover happened tomorrow, what would be the chances of actually scoring a couple of season tickets in time to use them for the first home game? Would the process move at the speed of a Keohane managed development of Sparrows Lane?
I am sure you would have no trouble at all in buying and being able to use two season tickets straight away, if you bought them immediately following a takeover.
However, you may have to take pot luck as to some of the finer details of the season ticket you would end up with. Like, the names on the season tickets. And whether they were in the right part of the ground. Or, indeed, in the same part of the ground as each other. Or, indeed for the same club. Or season.
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.
Coming to this a little late. However, it is frankly ridiculous to imagine withholding season ticket receipts is anything but an exceptional practice. The primary reason season tickets are put on sale as early as they are is to help with cash flow when cash income would otherwise be at its lowest. If it was normal practice to withhold, clubs wouldnt get through the summer.
It strikes me that the bank are looking at the current situation of the club and are addressing the risk that cash is released and taken out of the business rather than provisioned against commitments (e.g. wages, supplier invoices), something that may ultimately render the club insolvent if an unpaid supplier opts to head to court. This doesn't mean the club is in a parlous financial situation, it does mean that the bank considers the sum of the current complexities a risk that needs mitigating.
My understanding is that we are only talking about income from season ticket sales where credit cards have been used as payment. The banks cannot withhold money received on ticket sales where the payment method is cash, cheque or Debit Card.
I wonder what proportion of season ticket sales are paid for using a credit card?
I think you can rule out cash and cheque as relatively trivial by volume in 2018, although the club’s assertion it was still (unlawfully) charging a fee for credit cards will have put off some. Although “credit cards” was stated it may well extend to debit cards because of the (weaker) legal protection they offer.
I would be astounded if banks were allowed to withhold monies paid via debit cards. Surely the money goes directly from the payee's account into the club's account.
No. It doesn't. There is never a "direct route". It would also not be a "bank" per se withholding funds. But a payment services provider or acquirer. The fact that the chances are that a bank provides this service through a subsidiary is neither here nor there.
Here's how it works:
Part One: The punter presents their card to a merchant; the transaction data is collected and passed to an acquirer; the acquirer passes a transaction authorisation request to the Card Scheme (usually Visa or Mastercard); the Card Scheme routes the transaction to the card issuer (your bank or credit card issuer).
Part Two: The card issuer gives an authorisation response (normally, yes) to the Card Scheme and debits your account; the approval is routed first to the acquirer and then the merchant and the merchants computer or terminal says yes.
The acquirer is the important part of this process. They will have a merchant service agreement with the merchant and will only pass on funds (less their fees) if they are sure that they will not be at risk from loss. If there is a chargeback (debit card) or S75 CCA refund (credit card) then it will be the acquirer that pays the card issuer, via the Scheme and tries to get the money back from the merchant (if they still exist).
So, if the acquirer sees the merchant as being high risk, they may well hold funds in the merchant's account with them and payout in tranches on a rolling basis. The crucial thing is what the merchant service agreement says in this regard.
By way of example, this is an extract from the Merchant Services Agreement from Worldpay, one of the largest acquirers.
5.2 In respect of any sums specified in clause 5.3 below, we may at our option (which we may exercise in our sole and absolute discretion): (A) deduct or withhold such sums from, or set-off such sums against, any amount we are otherwise obliged to pay you; and/or (B) send you an invoice for any or all such sums, which invoice shall be payable in accordance with its terms and within the relevant period specified in clause 4.3;
The sums referred to in clause 5.2 are: (A) any Refunds; (B) any Chargebacks; (C) any Assessments; (D) any Chargeback Costs; (E) any Claims; (F) any Anticipated Liabilities; (G) any Fees; and (H) any other charges or amounts due from you to us under this Agreement or otherwise.
The bold bits are my emphasis.
The only reason I can see why an acquirer would care (or even know) if a card was classified as a debit or credit card would be if it impacted their level of fees. Then take, for example, the fact that some Amex cards are credit cards but many are just charge cards. (Not that that matters for Charlton because they don't accept Amex!)
I’d love to know what the numbers are re people waiting for takeover to renew s/ts. 1000?
Fairly obvious it will go up by a couple of thousand based on those people who have been going and stop due to the regime (which any long term supporter could see) but I doubt more than that
I love being down the Valley, i love the people, the vibe. i been through really great times and i am going through the bad times, which are right now! We had to deal with the Glikstens, Huyer and all the other "business men' who knew how to run a football club, and didn't. I REALLY want to renew my ST, because i LOVE this club, not the owner, not the myriad hangers on, but the the good honest footballing people i have the honour to stand with every other Saturday and watch a team i would have given 10 yrs of my life to have played for! PLEASE PLEASE can some one look beyond the balance sheet, and see us THE FANS, the ones who are the heart of any football club.!
This thread could really do with some light hearted fish puns
Something to warm the cockles then...
I just thought all the exciting talk about the really not at all dull details on the inner workings of card transactions meant there was a danger we couldn’t see the wood for the Porbeagle sharks
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.
Coming to this a little late. However, it is frankly ridiculous to imagine withholding season ticket receipts is anything but an exceptional practice. The primary reason season tickets are put on sale as early as they are is to help with cash flow when cash income would otherwise be at its lowest. If it was normal practice to withhold, clubs wouldnt get through the summer.
It strikes me that the bank are looking at the current situation of the club and are addressing the risk that cash is released and taken out of the business rather than provisioned against commitments (e.g. wages, supplier invoices), something that may ultimately render the club insolvent if an unpaid supplier opts to head to court. This doesn't mean the club is in a parlous financial situation, it does mean that the bank considers the sum of the current complexities a risk that needs mitigating.
My understanding is that we are only talking about income from season ticket sales where credit cards have been used as payment. The banks cannot withhold money received on ticket sales where the payment method is cash, cheque or Debit Card.
I wonder what proportion of season ticket sales are paid for using a credit card?
I think you can rule out cash and cheque as relatively trivial by volume in 2018, although the club’s assertion it was still (unlawfully) charging a fee for credit cards will have put off some. Although “credit cards” was stated it may well extend to debit cards because of the (weaker) legal protection they offer.
I would be astounded if banks were allowed to withhold monies paid via debit cards. Surely the money goes directly from the payee's account into the club's account.
No. It doesn't. There is never a "direct route". It would also not be a "bank" per se withholding funds. But a payment services provider or acquirer. The fact that the chances are that a bank provides this service through a subsidiary is neither here nor there.
Here's how it works:
Part One: The punter presents their card to a merchant; the transaction data is collected and passed to an acquirer; the acquirer passes a transaction authorisation request to the Card Scheme (usually Visa or Mastercard); the Card Scheme routes the transaction to the card issuer (your bank or credit card issuer).
Part Two: The card issuer gives an authorisation response (normally, yes) to the Card Scheme and debits your account; the approval is routed first to the acquirer and then the merchant and the merchants computer or terminal says yes.
The acquirer is the important part of this process. They will have a merchant service agreement with the merchant and will only pass on funds (less their fees) if they are sure that they will not be at risk from loss. If there is a chargeback (debit card) or S75 CCA refund (credit card) then it will be the acquirer that pays the card issuer, via the Scheme and tries to get the money back from the merchant (if they still exist).
So, if the acquirer sees the merchant as being high risk, they may well hold funds in the merchant's account with them and payout in tranches on a rolling basis. The crucial thing is what the merchant service agreement says in this regard.
By way of example, this is an extract from the Merchant Services Agreement from Worldpay, one of the largest acquirers.
5.2 In respect of any sums specified in clause 5.3 below, we may at our option (which we may exercise in our sole and absolute discretion): (A) deduct or withhold such sums from, or set-off such sums against, any amount we are otherwise obliged to pay you; and/or (B) send you an invoice for any or all such sums, which invoice shall be payable in accordance with its terms and within the relevant period specified in clause 4.3;
The sums referred to in clause 5.2 are: (A) any Refunds; (B) any Chargebacks; (C) any Assessments; (D) any Chargeback Costs; (E) any Claims; (F) any Anticipated Liabilities; (G) any Fees; and (H) any other charges or amounts due from you to us under this Agreement or otherwise.
The bold bits are my emphasis.
The only reason I can see why an acquirer would care (or even know) if a card was classified as a debit or credit card would be if it impacted their level of fees. Then take, for example, the fact that some Amex cards are credit cards but many are just charge cards. (Not that that matters for Charlton because they don't accept Amex!)
What are the possible "anticipated liabilities " that would justify an acquirer withholding any part of my Debit card payment for a season ticket? Why would the possibility of the club going bust in the near future justify them withholding any part of a Debit card payment?
Comments
I think there was a trust survey on this.
However, you may have to take pot luck as to some of the finer details of the season ticket you would end up with. Like, the names on the season tickets. And whether they were in the right part of the ground. Or, indeed, in the same part of the ground as each other. Or, indeed for the same club. Or season.
https://castrust.org/2018/05/season-ticket-and-attitudes-survey-results/
Here's how it works:
Part One:
The punter presents their card to a merchant; the transaction data is collected and passed to an acquirer; the acquirer passes a transaction authorisation request to the Card Scheme (usually Visa or Mastercard); the Card Scheme routes the transaction to the card issuer (your bank or credit card issuer).
Part Two:
The card issuer gives an authorisation response (normally, yes) to the Card Scheme and debits your account; the approval is routed first to the acquirer and then the merchant and the merchants computer or terminal says yes.
The acquirer is the important part of this process. They will have a merchant service agreement with the merchant and will only pass on funds (less their fees) if they are sure that they will not be at risk from loss. If there is a chargeback (debit card) or S75 CCA refund (credit card) then it will be the acquirer that pays the card issuer, via the Scheme and tries to get the money back from the merchant (if they still exist).
So, if the acquirer sees the merchant as being high risk, they may well hold funds in the merchant's account with them and payout in tranches on a rolling basis. The crucial thing is what the merchant service agreement says in this regard.
By way of example, this is an extract from the Merchant Services Agreement from Worldpay, one of the largest acquirers.
5.2 In respect of any sums specified in clause 5.3 below, we may at our option (which we may exercise in our sole and absolute discretion):
(A) deduct or withhold such sums from, or set-off such sums against, any amount we are otherwise obliged to pay you; and/or
(B) send you an invoice for any or all such sums, which invoice shall be payable in accordance with its terms and within the relevant period specified in clause 4.3;
The sums referred to in clause 5.2 are:
(A) any Refunds;
(B) any Chargebacks;
(C) any Assessments;
(D) any Chargeback Costs;
(E) any Claims;
(F) any Anticipated Liabilities;
(G) any Fees; and
(H) any other charges or amounts due from you to us under this Agreement or otherwise.
The bold bits are my emphasis.
The only reason I can see why an acquirer would care (or even know) if a card was classified as a debit or credit card would be if it impacted their level of fees. Then take, for example, the fact that some Amex cards are credit cards but many are just charge cards. (Not that that matters for Charlton because they don't accept Amex!)
the ones who are the heart of any football club.!
That's just skating around the problem.