[OutboundSales]

Oxford [please reach out to FOX have them put you on retainer,

[OutboundSales]

absolutely not the case, fox is lying and trying to save their face.
i actually have a recording from fox talking to the client.

foxes words were we are direct and will do better anytime with rates fees and term then any broker.
That is a fact!

[abfunders]

YES THERE IS A CHANCE BUT NOT IN THIS CASE..... LETS BE CLEAR

There is a chance that the merchant had another bank account that fox was pulling from in order to get more money without anyone knowing that he had a current advance. I had had plenty of files that tried to hide advances in different accounts. I even had a merchant send a zbl that we confirmed still had a 18k balances. You cant trust 99% of the merchants out there. You should trust your funders first that you have a good relationship with and are not known for back dooring merchants.

Get someone else who has heard the conversation verify your claims. Send them the recording and give their honest opinion about it. Fox is in NY, and I'm sure they were recording their call also, and it's a one-side consent state, so let's get a non-involved 3rd party hear the call and then post.

[OutboundSales]

Hey AB funders, i see you are a loudmouth!
here is an idea for you.
Do everyone a favor and go eat KIGEL ,

no one is really interested in what a KIGEL FRESSER has to say..

Be well fetzelle

[OutboundSales]

Hey AB funders, i see you are a loudmouth!
here is an idea for you.
Do everyone a favor and go eat KIGEL ,

no one is really interested in what a KIGEL FRESSER has to say..

Be well fetzelle

ps the call came in from a cellphone, already worked on getting the registered name on the phone
guess what! its a prepaid phone used to rob and deceive legitimate folks

[OutboundSales]

i was thinking of uploading the call with a link in the post,
so everyone can hear, the issue is , Counsel advises against it

[Oxforddan]

Oxford [please reach out to FOX have them put you on retainer,

I wouldn't take their money. I do not like FOX, never have and never will. I think they suck and have absolutely zero offerings that my company or clients could benefit from. With that being said they do have a halfway decent reputation over a substantial period of time, unlike you. You have no idea who is on here and how they could potentially help you, yet you are antagonizing people for no reason. I get it, you are pissed you lost your one trash deal. It sucks, we have all been there. Here is some free advice. Get back on the phone and find more deals. Find a FEW decent partners to fund your deals and build relationships with them.

[ADiamond]

I wouldn't take their money. I do not like FOX, never have and never will. I think they suck and have absolutely zero offerings that my company or clients could benefit from. With that being said they do have a halfway decent reputation over a substantial period of time, unlike you. You have no idea who is on here and how they could potentially help you, yet you are antagonizing people for no reason. I get it, you are pissed you lost your one trash deal. It sucks, we have all been there. Here is some free advice. Get back on the phone and find more deals. Find a FEW decent partners to fund your deals and build relationships with them.

This is good advice, I approve.

OutboundSales - here's the reality. Although what you're trying to come on a public forum to claim where zero people know or trust you, being mostly hearsay and speculative at best, the fact that you continue to troll people into believing your story makes no one actually care. We all know what goes on at the best of funders in our space, it does not make them a bad funder to come on here to bash. Could be one bad apple, could be the whole bunch.

You're doing a terrible job at trying to force your view by berating people who question it, and quite frankly - no one cares. Learn from those who came before you.

If what you say is true, handle it, move on. If it continues to happen to other people, that will become their reputation. It won't happen with your little one-man shop campaign. Stop coming on here with that punk **** - we all know how to carry ourselves and handle our business. Those who don't fold up shop fairly quickly or the industry does it for them.

Do a better job at valuing and managing your working relationships and you won't have to make a clown of yourself at someone else's expense.

[BR-Nightmare]

This is good advice, I approve.

OutboundSales - here's the reality. Although what you're trying to come on a public forum to claim where zero people know or trust you, being mostly hearsay and speculative at best, the fact that you continue to troll people into believing your story makes no one actually care. We all know what goes on at the best of funders in our space, it does not make them a bad funder to come on here to bash. Could be one bad apple, could be the whole bunch.

You're doing a terrible job at trying to force your view by berating people who question it, and quite frankly - no one cares. Learn from those who came before you.

Outbound giving Alex Jones vibes up in here.

[brandon_]

Don't send files to places that have been in the deal prior without making a phone call to them first and verifying their exclusivity. Otherwise, all you're doing is giving them free lunch...

[ADiamond]

Don't send files to places that have been in the deal prior without making a phone call to them first and verifying their exclusivity. Otherwise, all you're doing is giving them free lunch...

OH WAIT... I missed that part trying to filter through all the b.s.

OutboundSales said his client he submitted to Fox got a call from them after, and says this is what the client said happened -

My guy at Fox Business credit reached out and told me that he sees that we are in the market."

Heh, this makes this whole situation and thread even more laughable.

YOUR CLIENT HAS A PREVIOUS RELATIONSHIP WITH FOX.

They own the file, doesn't matter if they're paid off. What makes you think you can try to bring a client back to a funder who already had them either in-house or out, and you and only you have exclusivity to the client over the funder now - when you did absolutely nothing, and Fox took the risk on it previously and owns rights to the file?

And before you question that last part, yes they very well might OWN it if that's the case. If they funded it with another broker, that broker agreement very well may have language in it that entitles Fox to the file if that broker took no action to retain the relationship.

You really thought you were going to just insert yourself between them to profit off of their previous work? You have the client now, yes - that does not mean Fox had no right to do what you say they did - if all of the above is true, which now I think it is the case. If it is, sure - they may not have been currently actively soliciting the client, and you alerted them to his interest. They are not wrong for that.

OutboundSales - you have to have some nerve to come on here claiming and implying they tried to undercut you on this deal & client in this situation.

Sorry but you're actually 110% in the wrong here materially - and you should retract your previous statements and apologize not only to Fox but everyone in this thread.

---

ON ANOTHER NOTE --> Sean Cash / DF Admin -- forum should have negative reputation points, in addition to positive - for situations like this.

[MichaelP]

Outbound giving Alex Jones vibes up in here.

Lol. True.


If they were somewhat recently in the deal or from the explanation given, still in the deal from a different acct that the merchant didn't send to you in an attempt to deceive you and them then you messed up by sending it to them.

[mistamca]

OH WAIT... I missed that part trying to filter through all the b.s.

OutboundSales said his client he submitted to Fox got a call from them after, and says this is what the client said happened -



Heh, this makes this whole situation and thread even more laughable.

YOUR CLIENT HAS A PREVIOUS RELATIONSHIP WITH FOX.

They own the file, doesn't matter if they're paid off. What makes you think you can try to bring a client back to a funder who already had them either in-house or out, and you and only you have exclusivity to the client over the funder now - when you did absolutely nothing, and Fox took the risk on it previously and owns rights to the file?

And before you question that last part, yes they very well might OWN it if that's the case. If they funded it with another broker, that broker agreement very well may have language in it that entitles Fox to the file if that broker took no action to retain the relationship.

You really thought you were going to just insert yourself between them to profit off of their previous work? You have the client now, yes - that does not mean Fox had no right to do what you say they did - if all of the above is true, which now I think it is the case. If it is, sure - they may not have been currently actively soliciting the client, and you alerted them to his interest. They are not wrong for that.

OutboundSales - you have to have some nerve to come on here claiming and implying they tried to undercut you on this deal & client in this situation.

Sorry but you're actually 110% in the wrong here materially - and you should retract your previous statements and apologize not only to Fox but everyone in this thread.

---

ON ANOTHER NOTE --> Sean Cash / DF Admin -- forum should have negative reputation points, in addition to positive - for situations like this.

I am going to agree to disagree on this. No funder owns a file in perpetuity. If I am going to bring a file to a funder that is paid off, then I am not trying to steal profit but create a new revenue opportunity & if a funder sees differently, then I wont work w them

With that being said, I would never sub a file to a funder w an active balance bc whats the point?

[BR-Nightmare]

With that being said, I would never sub a file to a funder w an active balance bc whats the point?

You'd be surprise how many subs come to funders with them already in there.

You can more than likely tally that to a brokers negligence in reviewing the statements.

[closer129]

Its good for funders when brokers do that. We can see if they are looking to stack on us and put our money at risk and if they payments start to bounce we will know why. If the deal is starting to default we have updated statements to see what is going on compared to being in the dark on so many files that get stacked to the gills.

[FCG]

Buyers are liars, man

[downtownfunding]

"your process must not be confidential. My guy at Fox Business credit reached out and told me that he sees that we are in the market."

They were good , now they are not good anymore, at least we know the expiration date FOX passed away...

This is one of the most melodramatic responses that one could have to this situation. First off, what kind of statement is that from your merchant, the place you sent the deal is aware that they, themselves, received the file so 'your process must not be confidential'?

I see you are registered here within the last year. Buddy if this is the extent of a company contacting your merchant, you really should count your blessings. I receive calls daily because I used to put my phone number on apps to find out who was actually backdooring me. This guy A) clearly had funding with Fox in the past ("my guy at Fox" lmao), and the rep who had the file internally probably saw he submitted via a broker and reached out to basically say "Why wouldn't you have come direct". Exclusivity bro.

From what I did gather from your libelous post, they did not try to steal your file by calling the merchant. That conversation would have been more akin to 'if you submit with me direct I'll get you a better deal'. Give it a break with the libel.

You're gonna learn a lot harder lessons than a rep reaching out to a merchant to say 'why would you have gone elsewhere to submit your file here'. You're 10 months in. I can promise you that in a year you won't even remember this accusation that you've made because by then you'll learn what actually being backdoored is like. Even better, wait til you have a merchant submit himself to 10 places and you're competing against 4-5 other shops at the same funder for the same file with the same terms on your offer while that merchant pits you against the funder and lies through his teeth to play you like a fool.

This industry is for the big boys.

They have NO right to call the client behind my back telling him he sees that we are in the market." and then telling him he can work out a deal, cutting the very people that brought in the deal....

They actually, depending on the terms of their ISO agreement which by no means do I feel like pulling out and reading on someone else's behalf, may have every right to. If it's within a certain amount of time from the time they're paid off internally, especially if he falls within their post-PIF exclusivity period , they most certainly do have that right and disclosed it to you in said ISO agreement. If it falls within that period, then I personally would take this as absolute libel by someone who needs to learn the bounds of the industry they think they have some right to operate within. They literally own this file and the data associated with it and can market to it any time they want. You're lucky that all they did was call the merchant to ask 'wtf?'.

Wait until you submit a file somewhere and they tell you that even though the merchant is a PIF, he's still under their exclusivity period internally, and they straight up fund the guy out from under you because they have that right within the ISO agreement and from how you seem to play with others, have no obligation to not reach out to someone who might as well still be on their books. I can only imagine your post then.

[downtownfunding]

your iso agreement with that funder very likely says that even if you submit a file to them and they decline, that they can market to it after a set number of days. If they've funded a file, of course they can market to it whenever they want. and if a file you submit is recently PIF there, it very likely falls under their exclusivity period where you would be lucky for them to just call and ask the merchant why the heck they submitted their file to them thru a broker instead of direct, they would have every right to just offer a renewal to them...you know, because it literally falls within their exclusivity period post PIF.

[RevenueConsultant]

Good Points. That's why you stay in touch with your merchants and roll them over into a new funding agreement if needed before they get PIF. You can remain in control if you're good.

[DonMcGrath]

your iso agreement with that funder very likely says that even if you submit a file to them and they decline, that they can market to it after a set number of days. If they've funded a file, of course they can market to it whenever they want. and if a file you submit is recently PIF there, it very likely falls under their exclusivity period where you would be lucky for them to just call and ask the merchant why the heck they submitted their file to them thru a broker instead of direct, they would have every right to just offer a renewal to them...you know, because it literally falls within their exclusivity period post PIF.

Good answers Downtown!. I think you just cancelled the last episode of Outbound Sales - Tears of a Sugar Daddy

[OutboundSales]

Its important to update the outcome so people see the Finale,

Got the client a great deal with Vox 200k 1.24 12 months nice weekly payment with early payoff discounts, that's how you Represent!

[Ehenek]

Then why not disclose this to the broker who brought the file to you? I think your lack of communication led to a breakdown in your professionalism and clearly upset one of your broker/ISO relationships. I would highly suggest maybe giving this said broker some sort of compensation as it was submitted to you with the intent that he/she felt it was clean. Your organization did NOT reach out to disclose any material information before moving forward with any type of submission?
I think you 2 can come to some sort of agreement offline.

[MCN]

Good Morning All,
Wanted to update everyone that FOX Business is no longer a Trustworthy Source, and cannot be trusted with other peoples files. ill explain

I did submit a file for working capital to FOX this morning,
15 minutes later the client calls me and emails me this,

"your process must not be confidential. My guy at Fox Business credit reached out and told me that he sees that we are in the market."

They were good , now they are not good anymore, at least we know the expiration date FOX passed away...

Also these guys call themselves friends of ours....

Thanks

i can't stand when these little 20 year old kids come on here with no industry knowledge or experience and jump the gun trying to accuse reputable companies of screwing him.

My friend, be a little more humble, listen to what your more experienced elders are telling you, take a deep breathe and relax. Pick up the phone and call your rep at FOX and find out the situation. In most cases theres a perfectly logical explantion that you can agree with or not agree with. You can then indepentently decide whether you want to continue to send them deals or not. Either way Move on and use it as a learning experience.