has jones got a point?

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/footballna ... -26967255/

we owe a credit broker for hudson not charlton ,should we be under one?

It's still a football debt.

I'd doubt Charlton have received the full amount from the credit broker.

It's DJ looking for yet another excuse - it's the league's fault now. The league can have a shit journey home, no doubt.

Even so, we've still only part paid HMRC.

And let's be honest, when DJ moans about "onbe rule for others", presumably meaning portsmouth, the Kennedy sale is pretty obviously a way to play the rule ourselves so Drinkwater can register.

It's still a football debt.

I'd doubt Charlton have received the full amount from the credit broker.

It's DJ looking for yet another excuse - it's the league's fault now. The league can have a shit journey home, no doubt.

Even so, we've still only part paid HMRC.

And let's be honest, when DJ moans about "onbe rule for others", presumably meaning portsmouth, the Kennedy sale is pretty obviously a way to play the rule ourselves so Drinkwater can register.

I think Charlton would have been paid that's the whole point of finance.

However, it is probable that our debt to the credit broker (is that Ranson BTW?) is a football debt. As for the 'one rule for others' what is that? Were we stopped from registering Drinkwater once we reached 20 players, but Portsmouth weren't?

It's still a football debt.

I'd doubt Charlton have received the full amount from the credit broker.

It's DJ looking for yet another excuse - it's the league's fault now. The league can have a shit journey home, no doubt.

Even so, we've still only part paid HMRC.

And let's be honest, when DJ moans about "onbe rule for others", presumably meaning portsmouth, the Kennedy sale is pretty obviously a way to play the rule ourselves so Drinkwater can register.

I think Charlton would have been paid that's the whole point of finance.

However, it is probable that our debt to the credit broker (is that Ranson BTW?) is a football debt. As for the 'one rule for others' what is that? Were we stopped from registering Drinkwater once we reached 20 players, but Portsmouth weren't?

given the state of our finances, doubt any credit broker would do anything other than give credit on a per stage basis. I'd thus assume we've not paid back the credit broker for the first stage paid to Charlton, hence broker not funding further stages.

Portsmouth had less than 20 players. You're given special dispensation to bring players in up to that level in those circumstance. Portsmouth remain under an embargo, had to get dispensation as a result.

Let's be honest, 75k for Kennedy doesn't really imoprove the finances a great deal - since we're limited at left back spot now. it was a convenience done to aid going below 20 to register Drinkwater. We're circumventing the rule, let's be honest.

I think Charlton would have been paid that's the whole point of finance.

However, it is probable that our debt to the credit broker (is that Ranson BTW?) is a football debt. As for the 'one rule for others' what is that? Were we stopped from registering Drinkwater once we reached 20 players, but Portsmouth weren't?

given the state of our finances, doubt any credit broker would do anything other than give credit on a per stage basis. I'd thus assume we've not paid back the credit broker for the first stage paid to Charlton, hence broker not funding further stages.

Portsmouth had less than 20 players. You're given special dispensation to bring players in up to that level in those circumstance. Portsmouth remain under an embargo, had to get dispensation as a result.

Let's be honest, 75k for Kennedy doesn't really imoprove the finances a great deal - since we're limited at left back spot now. it was a convenience done to aid going below 20 to register Drinkwater. We're circumventing the rule, let's be honest.

TBH I'm still not convinced about your staged payments theory, however that's not what I'm really interested in. I understand your explanation about the Portsmouth thing and I fully agree the Football League are not at fault and we did try circumventing the rule by selling Kennedy to Ipswich.

I think Charlton would have been paid that's the whole point of finance.

However, it is probable that our debt to the credit broker (is that Ranson BTW?) is a football debt. As for the 'one rule for others' what is that? Were we stopped from registering Drinkwater once we reached 20 players, but Portsmouth weren't?

given the state of our finances, doubt any credit broker would do anything other than give credit on a per stage basis. I'd thus assume we've not paid back the credit broker for the first stage paid to Charlton, hence broker not funding further stages.

Portsmouth had less than 20 players. You're given special dispensation to bring players in up to that level in those circumstance. Portsmouth remain under an embargo, had to get dispensation as a result.

Let's be honest, 75k for Kennedy doesn't really imoprove the finances a great deal - since we're limited at left back spot now. it was a convenience done to aid going below 20 to register Drinkwater. We're circumventing the rule, let's be honest.

TBH I'm still not convinced about your staged payments theory, however that's not what I'm really interested in. I understand your explanation about the Portsmouth thing and I fully agree the Football League are not at fault and we did try circumventing the rule by selling Kennedy to Ipswich.

Trying to make sense of the broker thing.

Assuming Charlton had all the money from the broker, then they'd have no reason to complain - they've been paid. Which is why I'm veering to the staged payments issue OR we had to pay broker in full and haven't. Given there are few transfers these days that are all money upfront, and given our history of missing staged payments, a la HMRC...

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/footballnation/cardiff-city-fc/2010/07/31/bluebirds-boss-jones-blasts-league-over-transfer-embargo-91466-26967255/

we owe a credit broker for hudson not charlton ,should we be under one?

Wez, We usually agree on most things, but on this one I dont Believe Jones has a point, a Debt is Debt and They are not just picking on Cardiff City, its the Same Rule for Every team.

The deal between Charlton and the broker is that even through Charlton would have had the full amount less a % for the broker. It also probably inculded a clawback that if the broker didn't get paid by the customer then they will take action against Charlton which is probably the case and hense the reason why Charlton is raising the issue with the FA.

With all due respect to Jones he has been involved in football business for many years now and would know excatly whats goes on with certain deals so he has no right to complain as the fault lies solely with CCFC.

Midfield General has it right, it's quite simple with a credit broker. Charlton would have had the choice of, say, waiting a year for their £500k second stage or receiving perhaps £450k straight away from the credit broker so as to improve their immediate cash flow. The fee charged by the credit broker would reflect (a) their admin costs, (b) the rate of interest they have to pay to finance the upfront payment and (c) the degree of risk they felt would apply to the payment not being received / delayed.

If City delay making the payment then it is really just as much a football debt as if the money is payable direct to Charlton.

As City have become notorious for late payment this will increase the staged fees that they have to pay for future players. Clubs will have to pay larger fees to a credit broker to finance a CCFC debt than one from a club that pays on time.

It is also possible that CCFC's service providers will wise up and charge premiums for late payment e.g. charge £100k for service X with a 10% discount if paid within 30 days.