Thanks to both of you.
Quote:
|
Their attitude is that their licensees are good solid companies and that they don't need to intervene because of this. They have already done their due diligence.
|
That's obviously fine while they ARE "good, solid companies". All companies are good & solid until they go down - 40+, Goodfellas etc etc. Additionally, being good & solid doesn't stop them from pulling the occasional fast one or behaving unethically, as has happened with some of the biggest operators out there over the years and as apparently is happening here. That they "don't need to intervene" because of an initial apparent clean bill of health is a total copout and plain WRONG. Since when did businesses not change, develop etc - for better or worse - after their inception? What a crock.
Quote:
|
Added to this, in mediations I have attempted through them there is either a flat refusal to get involved, or a wall of silence from this company.
|
I never even heard of any Chartwell issues; the only licensees I've patronised - Victor Chandler and Coral - are all solid and fast payers even if the software is crap and buggy as hell. I had no idea about, or at least have no recollection of, any Chartwell issues. On this basis alone they should be at the very least officially not recommended, there being no backup in the event an operation going wrong or causing problems in some form or another - as it's now apparent to me has already occured - since Chartwell are clearly open about the fact that they have no interest in the business practices of their customers beyond their ability to stump up the license fee.