nestegg wrote:Answered elsewhere mate. And 'we' are growing in numbers. Don't wish to be so 'cloak and dagger', but sadly have no choice.
You can, however, be assured that we are Bulls fans and want to see the club be on a firm footing and finally have a sustainable future, inc for great players such as Elliot. .
Have no choice?
Because revealing your identity would show you’re talking complete nonsense?
nestegg wrote:Answered elsewhere mate. And 'we' are growing in numbers. Don't wish to be so 'cloak and dagger', but sadly have no choice.
You can, however, be assured that we are Bulls fans and want to see the club be on a firm footing and finally have a sustainable future, inc for great players such as Elliot. .
Ewwenorfolk wrote:I work in commercial development, specialising in credit cards for one of the main high street banks.
Where you refer to a payments processor, presumably you are referring to the acquirers role within a card transaction. The acquirer usually has no right to withhold funds and the merchant will normally receive their funds within 2-3 working days.
The acquirer isn’t creating any additional risk for themselves by prompt settlement of transactions, given any section 75 claim would be issued against the customers bank. The transaction goes customer>merchant>acquirer>card processor>bank.
Stop pretending to be a group of well informed fans when you’re in fact a poop stirring sad bloke with too much time on his hands.
You are right mate in the vast majority of instances and your relevant experience is appreciated.
In this instance, however, things may not possibly be as clear cut as you say.
Again sorry for the cloak and dagger approach, but there's things we now, but at this time cannot say.
If you think we are fraudsters and tinpot trolls then that's fine. Let's see where are by say Xmas and we can possibly compare some notes again.
nestegg wrote:You are right mate in the vast majority of instances and your relevant experience is appreciated.
In this instance, however, things may not possibly be as clear cut as you say.
Again sorry for the cloak and dagger approach, but there's things we now, but at this time cannot say.
If you think we are fraudsters and tinpot trolls then that's fine. Let's see where are by say Xmas and we can possibly compare some notes again.
The only reason forthcoming for your anonymity is that you’re not in the know, you simply like hiding behind a keyboard and taking advantage of the frustration on here by trying to add in further confusion and conspiracies.
If that’s not the case, then tell us why you need to remain anonymous.
Ewwenorfolk wrote:The only reason forthcoming for your anonymity is that you’re not in the know, you simply like hiding behind a keyboard and taking advantage of the frustration on here by trying to add in further confusion and conspiracies.
If that’s not the case, then tell us why you need to remain anonymous.
Respect your fishing expedition interests. Many have their rods out.
But look we honestly don't wish to add to any frustration.
Just give it time and pl be patient. If you want to believe we are not in the know then that's perfectly fine. If, however, we were totally in the know (which we admit we are not!) then we would amongst others be RR, AC, MS, CB, and an ex RFL official wouldn't we ?
Users browsing this forum: paulwalker71 and 171 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
