TAKEOVER *NOT* CONFIMRED

[WestYorksRoyal]

The Olise things is rumours.

I would assume if a player has a buy out clause which is fully met it nullifies the existing contract and would leave the buying club free to negotiate from scratch.

I guess it depends what the actual contract said.

On this weeks That Peter Crouch podcast, they were covering contracts and Steve Sidwell has some of his there including a Reading one, They told the story of someone whose contract has a line about letting them talk to clubs who made a bit of £1m*, so the club let him speak to them then said we're not selling you for less than £5m* so the transfer never happened as the contract only stated they would let the player speak to those clubs, not that they had to sell for £1m*

*Can't remember the exact numbers quoted, but was along these lines

Was Charlton before our 06/07 Premier League season. Given they were poor and got relegated, he performed well in an over achieving team and got a move to Chelsea, I'd suggest he did very well out of it.

[Forbury Lion]

The Olise things is rumours.

I would assume if a player has a buy out clause which is fully met it nullifies the existing contract and would leave the buying club free to negotiate from scratch.

I guess it depends what the actual contract said.

On this weeks That Peter Crouch podcast, they were covering contracts and Steve Sidwell has some of his there including a Reading one, They told the story of someone whose contract has a line about letting them talk to clubs who made a bit of £1m*, so the club let him speak to them then said we're not selling you for less than £5m* so the transfer never happened as the contract only stated they would let the player speak to those clubs, not that they had to sell for £1m*

*Can't remember the exact numbers quoted, but was along these lines

Was Charlton before our 06/07 Premier League season. Given they were poor and got relegated, he performed well in an over achieving team and got a move to Chelsea, I'd suggest he did very well out of it.

Sidwell was actually on less money at Chelsea than he was offered to stay at Reading. However, win bonuses were probably alot higher on account of Chelsea actually winning things... Doubt Reading even offered their players a bonus for winning the Premier League

[Clyde1998]

That implies people have credit cards. Around 64% of adults have at least one credit card in the UK - leaving 36% without one. The age breakdown is such that younger people are significantly less likely to have one than a middle-aged adult as well.

Buying anything worth more than £100 on debit card is stupid. If it never turns up, or the company goes bust, a credit card company just gives you the money back no questions asked.

Martin Lewis' very existence clearly still passing millions by.

People are stupid.
I know an accountant who bought a top of the range TV on her debit card from a website nobody has ever heard of, it didn't turn up and the website disappeared

Also, when paying with paypal, never use friends and familly to pay even if the seller insists because that means you are not covered.

If a product didn't turn up, that would come under a chargeback claim. You can dispute payments made in the previous 120 days (some times longer) and is designed for items not turning up or being faulty; although this link suggests services (like flights or concerts) have a 540 day window (starting from the date of the planned event).

It's based on an agreement between the card provider (Visa, Mastercard, etc.) and the issuer (typically a bank) and not a legal protection. That accountant could've simply complained to their bank to get the money back.

Anyone paying for anything on a debit card, where chargeback has been refused, can then go to the Financial Ombudsman and then to court. The process under chargeback may be longer however and there's no specific time scale.

Interestingly* the credit card protection comes under the Consumer Credit Act 1974, with no piece of legislation since being directly related to refunds of payments made by card since despite the major increase in proliferation since.

[Greatwesternline]

Buying anything worth more than £100 on debit card is stupid. If it never turns up, or the company goes bust, a credit card company just gives you the money back no questions asked.

Martin Lewis' very existence clearly still passing millions by.

People are stupid.
I know an accountant who bought a top of the range TV on her debit card from a website nobody has ever heard of, it didn't turn up and the website disappeared

Also, when paying with paypal, never use friends and familly to pay even if the seller insists because that means you are not covered.

If a product didn't turn up, that would come under a chargeback claim. You can dispute payments made in the previous 120 days (some times longer) and is designed for items not turning up or being faulty; although this link suggests services (like flights or concerts) have a 540 day window (starting from the date of the planned event).

It's based on an agreement between the card provider (Visa, Mastercard, etc.) and the issuer (typically a bank) and not a legal protection. That accountant could've simply complained to their bank to get the money back.

Anyone paying for anything on a debit card, where chargeback has been refused, can then go to the Financial Ombudsman and then to court. The process under chargeback may be longer however and there's no specific time scale.

Interestingly* the credit card protection comes under the Consumer Credit Act 1974, with no piece of legislation since being directly related to refunds of payments made by card since despite the major increase in proliferation since.

Sadly (for me) this is an area in which i am something of an expert, having to deal with the PSR on a regular basis. Credit cards are by far the card you want to be using when buying expensive things. Section 75 of the CCA is significantly more powerful and reliable than relying on chargeback. Just my advice.

[Crusader Royal]

I really don’t want to fuel to any dread fire, but if they’re under an NDA during exclusivity they might not have that option

If they have pulled out of any agreement then the NDA ceases to hold weight - it will be for the length of the process. If the process "is complete" they can say what the hell they like.

NDA’s are incident specific, so potentially could have any clause they like.
For example, the loans made so far could be said to become voidable if the purchaser blabs
If the NDA says they can’t say anything ever, then they can’t say what they like … ever

But both sides would need to agree to any clauses, and why would a prospective purchaser agree to being handcuffed for ever ?
A seller putting unreasonable terms into a NDA is likely to put off a buyer because it shows they aren’t going into the discussions in good faith.

[Clyde1998]

I guess it depends what the actual contract said.

On this weeks That Peter Crouch podcast, they were covering contracts and Steve Sidwell has some of his there including a Reading one, They told the story of someone whose contract has a line about letting them talk to clubs who made a bit of £1m*, so the club let him speak to them then said we're not selling you for less than £5m* so the transfer never happened as the contract only stated they would let the player speak to those clubs, not that they had to sell for £1m*

*Can't remember the exact numbers quoted, but was along these lines

Was Charlton before our 06/07 Premier League season. Given they were poor and got relegated, he performed well in an over achieving team and got a move to Chelsea, I'd suggest he did very well out of it.

Sidwell was actually on less money at Chelsea than he was offered to stay at Reading. However, win bonuses were probably alot higher on account of Chelsea actually winning things... Doubt Reading even offered their players a bonus for winning the Premier League

They may have been indirect at Reading - like a bonus for every league place higher up the league we finished (£10,000 per place for example).

[Forbury Lion]

I wonder who the NDA's are between - If it's the club and the prospective new owners, then if they become owners they can choose to ignore it since they won't sue theirselves for breacking the NDA, unless it's a sneaky way to put money into the club.... break an NDA and pay the £50m penalty fee, club has £50m to spend on players..... will never be allowed to stick

[Franchise FC]

If they have pulled out of any agreement then the NDA ceases to hold weight - it will be for the length of the process. If the process "is complete" they can say what the hell they like.

NDA’s are incident specific, so potentially could have any clause they like.
For example, the loans made so far could be said to become voidable if the purchaser blabs
If the NDA says they can’t say anything ever, then they can’t say what they like … ever

But both sides would need to agree to any clauses, and why would a prospective purchaser agree to being handcuffed for ever ?
A seller putting unreasonable terms into a NDA is likely to put off a buyer because it shows they aren’t going into the discussions in good faith.

I suppose I should have expected that.

What I quoted was simply an example of what COULD be contained in an NDA
I was extremely clear to point out that I have no knowledge whatsoever on the terms of the one in place for RFC

[Clyde1998]

People are stupid.
I know an accountant who bought a top of the range TV on her debit card from a website nobody has ever heard of, it didn't turn up and the website disappeared

Also, when paying with paypal, never use friends and familly to pay even if the seller insists because that means you are not covered.

If a product didn't turn up, that would come under a chargeback claim. You can dispute payments made in the previous 120 days (some times longer) and is designed for items not turning up or being faulty; although this link suggests services (like flights or concerts) have a 540 day window (starting from the date of the planned event).

It's based on an agreement between the card provider (Visa, Mastercard, etc.) and the issuer (typically a bank) and not a legal protection. That accountant could've simply complained to their bank to get the money back.

Anyone paying for anything on a debit card, where chargeback has been refused, can then go to the Financial Ombudsman and then to court. The process under chargeback may be longer however and there's no specific time scale.

Interestingly* the credit card protection comes under the Consumer Credit Act 1974, with no piece of legislation since being directly related to refunds of payments made by card since despite the major increase in proliferation since.

Sadly (for me) this is an area in which i am something of an expert, having to deal with the PSR on a regular basis. Credit cards are by far the card you want to be using when buying expensive things. Section 75 of the CCA is significantly more powerful and reliable than relying on chargeback. Just my advice.

I'm not doubting your knowledge and any sort of legal protection will trump voluntary agreements - so use a credit card if people have one. I'm simply pointing out there are some methods to attempt to get money back for people who may not have a credit card as an option.

36% of people don't have a credit card (along with most young adults; 80% of 18-24 year olds). Ineligibility will be a component in that; not earning enough or having enough history (especially when talking about young adults) may prevent a credit card from being an option. I believe being self-employed can make it harder than someone employed by a larger company.

The more I've seen about chargebacks, etc., the more I think the legislation needs to be updated to cover different sorts of payments that didn't exist when the rules for credit cards were put in place.

[Greatwesternline]

If a product didn't turn up, that would come under a chargeback claim. You can dispute payments made in the previous 120 days (some times longer) and is designed for items not turning up or being faulty; although this link suggests services (like flights or concerts) have a 540 day window (starting from the date of the planned event).

It's based on an agreement between the card provider (Visa, Mastercard, etc.) and the issuer (typically a bank) and not a legal protection. That accountant could've simply complained to their bank to get the money back.

Anyone paying for anything on a debit card, where chargeback has been refused, can then go to the Financial Ombudsman and then to court. The process under chargeback may be longer however and there's no specific time scale.

Interestingly* the credit card protection comes under the Consumer Credit Act 1974, with no piece of legislation since being directly related to refunds of payments made by card since despite the major increase in proliferation since.

Sadly (for me) this is an area in which i am something of an expert, having to deal with the PSR on a regular basis. Credit cards are by far the card you want to be using when buying expensive things. Section 75 of the CCA is significantly more powerful and reliable than relying on chargeback. Just my advice.

I'm not doubting your knowledge and any sort of legal protection will trump voluntary agreements - so use a credit card if people have one. I'm simply pointing out there are some methods to attempt to get money back for people who may not have a credit card as an option.

36% of people don't have a credit card (along with most young adults; 80% of 18-24 year olds). Ineligibility will be a component in that; not earning enough or having enough history (especially when talking about young adults) may prevent a credit card from being an option. I believe being self-employed can make it harder than someone employed by a larger company.

The more I've seen about chargebacks, etc., the more I think the legislation needs to be updated to cover different sorts of payments that didn't exist when the rules for credit cards were put in place.

Yep the Government had been working on reforms to the CCA. But with the election being announced, that all gets put on ice.

[72 bus]

If a product didn't turn up, that would come under a chargeback claim. You can dispute payments made in the previous 120 days (some times longer) and is designed for items not turning up or being faulty; although this link suggests services (like flights or concerts) have a 540 day window (starting from the date of the planned event).

It's based on an agreement between the card provider (Visa, Mastercard, etc.) and the issuer (typically a bank) and not a legal protection. That accountant could've simply complained to their bank to get the money back.

Anyone paying for anything on a debit card, where chargeback has been refused, can then go to the Financial Ombudsman and then to court. The process under chargeback may be longer however and there's no specific time scale.

Interestingly* the credit card protection comes under the Consumer Credit Act 1974, with no piece of legislation since being directly related to refunds of payments made by card since despite the major increase in proliferation since.

Sadly (for me) this is an area in which i am something of an expert, having to deal with the PSR on a regular basis. Credit cards are by far the card you want to be using when buying expensive things. Section 75 of the CCA is significantly more powerful and reliable than relying on chargeback. Just my advice.

I'm not doubting your knowledge and any sort of legal protection will trump voluntary agreements - so use a credit card if people have one. I'm simply pointing out there are some methods to attempt to get money back for people who may not have a credit card as an option.

36% of people don't have a credit card (along with most young adults; 80% of 18-24 year olds). Ineligibility will be a component in that; not earning enough or having enough history (especially when talking about young adults) may prevent a credit card from being an option. I believe being self-employed can make it harder than someone employed by a larger company.

The more I've seen about chargebacks, etc., the more I think the legislation needs to be updated to cover different sorts of payments that didn't exist when the rules for credit cards were put in place.

There is nothing easier in this world to get than a credit card, they actually want you to find it hard to pay back in full every month that's how they make their money.
What they don't like is folk who pay it off in full every month which is the only sensible way to run your card account.
We put everything on the credit card and pay it off every month, last year we had over £500 in cashback, that's free money for nothing.

[blueroyals]

Section 75 is one of the nice consumer friendly protections which, if loans were invented today, would never in a million years be passed into law

[Snowflake Royal]

Sadly (for me) this is an area in which i am something of an expert, having to deal with the PSR on a regular basis. Credit cards are by far the card you want to be using when buying expensive things. Section 75 of the CCA is significantly more powerful and reliable than relying on chargeback. Just my advice.

I'm not doubting your knowledge and any sort of legal protection will trump voluntary agreements - so use a credit card if people have one. I'm simply pointing out there are some methods to attempt to get money back for people who may not have a credit card as an option.

36% of people don't have a credit card (along with most young adults; 80% of 18-24 year olds). Ineligibility will be a component in that; not earning enough or having enough history (especially when talking about young adults) may prevent a credit card from being an option. I believe being self-employed can make it harder than someone employed by a larger company.

The more I've seen about chargebacks, etc., the more I think the legislation needs to be updated to cover different sorts of payments that didn't exist when the rules for credit cards were put in place.

There is nothing easier in this world to get than a credit card, they actually want you to find it hard to pay back in full every month that's how they make their money.
What they don't like is folk who pay it off in full every month which is the only sensible way to run your card account.
We put everything on the credit card and pay it off every month, last year we had over £500 in cashback, that's free money for nothing.

Yes, that would definitely explain why they refuse a lot of people.



And no, I haven't been refused.

[Greatwesternline]

Section 75 is one of the nice consumer friendly protections which, if loans were invented today, would never in a million years be passed into law

Possibly, possibly not. The government has legislated to reimburse all victims of payment fraud, no matter how many warnings they ignore from their bank that they're about to pay money to a known fraudsters account.

[Sutekh]

Section 75 is one of the nice consumer friendly protections which, if loans were invented today, would never in a million years be passed into law

Possibly, possibly not. The government has legislated to reimburse all victims of payment fraud, no matter how many warnings they ignore from their bank that they're about to pay money to a known fraudsters account.

Well at least they'd be "wasting" money on people for a change.

[Sutekh]

Happy to get this thread back onto takeover talk! BBC Berks spoke to Mark McGhee last night (interview will probably be replayed on their Saturday sport show today and is available via the BBC sounds app) and he revealed he'd been asked by some German contacts of his about purchasing the club back in January and he had sounded out Reading about the possibility of buying the club. Unfortunately the pricing quoted put the German interest off but he spoke warmly of those he had been speaking to at the club saying the vibe he got was that they gave the impression of really having the clubs best interest at heart.

[RG30]

Could have been this chancer - https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11095/13097684/reading-german-businessman-daniel-loitz-in-talks-to-take-over-berkshire-club-and-rugby-team-london-irish

[72 bus]

Buying anything worth more than £100 on debit card is stupid. If it never turns up, or the company goes bust, a credit card company just gives you the money back no questions asked.

Martin Lewis' very existence clearly still passing millions by.

People are stupid.
I know an accountant who bought a top of the range TV on her debit card from a website nobody has ever heard of, it didn't turn up and the website disappeared

Also, when paying with paypal, never use friends and familly to pay even if the seller insists because that means you are not covered.

If a product didn't turn up, that would come under a chargeback claim. You can dispute payments made in the previous 120 days (some times longer) and is designed for items not turning up or being faulty; although this link suggests services (like flights or concerts) have a 540 day window (starting from the date of the planned event).

It's based on an agreement between the card provider (Visa, Mastercard, etc.) and the issuer (typically a bank) and not a legal protection. That accountant could've simply complained to their bank to get the money back.

Anyone paying for anything on a debit card, where chargeback has been refused, can then go to the Financial Ombudsman and then to court. The process under chargeback may be longer however and there's no specific time scale.

Interestingly* the credit card protection comes under the Consumer Credit Act 1974, with no piece of legislation since being directly related to refunds of payments made by card since despite the major increase in proliferation since.

"Anyone paying for anything on a debit card, where chargeback has been refused, can then go to the Financial Ombudsman and then to court. The process under chargeback may be longer however and there's no specific time scale."

Or you could simply pay by Credit card, if you have a dispute or overcharge simply ring your card provider and they sort it for you.

I know which I would prefer.

[Skin]

People are stupid.
I know an accountant who bought a top of the range TV on her debit card from a website nobody has ever heard of, it didn't turn up and the website disappeared

Also, when paying with paypal, never use friends and familly to pay even if the seller insists because that means you are not covered.

If a product didn't turn up, that would come under a chargeback claim. You can dispute payments made in the previous 120 days (some times longer) and is designed for items not turning up or being faulty; although this link suggests services (like flights or concerts) have a 540 day window (starting from the date of the planned event).

It's based on an agreement between the card provider (Visa, Mastercard, etc.) and the issuer (typically a bank) and not a legal protection. That accountant could've simply complained to their bank to get the money back.

Anyone paying for anything on a debit card, where chargeback has been refused, can then go to the Financial Ombudsman and then to court. The process under chargeback may be longer however and there's no specific time scale.

Interestingly* the credit card protection comes under the Consumer Credit Act 1974, with no piece of legislation since being directly related to refunds of payments made by card since despite the major increase in proliferation since.

"Anyone paying for anything on a debit card, where chargeback has been refused, can then go to the Financial Ombudsman and then to court. The process under chargeback may be longer however and there's no specific time scale."

Or you could simply pay by Credit card, if you have a dispute or overcharge simply ring your card provider and they sort it for you.

I know which I would prefer.

Unless the new buyer intends to use a credit card to buy us wtf has this got to do with this thread?

[rabidbee]

Unless the new buyer intends to use a credit card to buy us wtf has this got to do with this thread?

TL:DR - a) are you or are you not a mug if you renew your ST right now? and b) too many RFC fans work in financial services.