The Takeover Thread - Duchatelet Finally Sells (Jan 2020)

Crusty54 said:

Airman Brown said:

Red_in_SE8 said:

rikofold said:

Airman Brown said:

harveys_gardener said:

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.)

Airman Brown said:

Red_in_SE8 said:

rikofold said:

Airman Brown said:

harveys_gardener said:

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.

JamesSeed said:

I’d love to know what the numbers are re people waiting for takeover to renew s/ts. 1000?

seth plum said:

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?

cafcfan said:

Fumbluff said:

This thread could really do with some light hearted fish puns

Something to warm the cockles then...

cafcfan said:

Red_in_SE8 said:

Airman Brown said:

Red_in_SE8 said:

rikofold said:

Airman Brown said:

harveys_gardener said:

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!)