OK, enough now with the personal attacks and colourful language. It's clear which people are on which side of the fence. You will never convince each other to switch sides, so let's just sit back and see how it plays out.

I've posted before (many pages back thanks to all the trading of insults) that there is nothing wrong with creating separate entities to manage the relationships between backing banks, card issuers and sales brands. That's exactly what has been done here and is no different or convoluted than the hundreds of other cards managed by non-financial institutions (super markets, airlines, Internet accounts, etc).

But a big mistake was made... The announcement by the Minex team over simplifying the relationship between them and the ultimate financial institution backing the transactions. I think this was down unintentionally, and it seems to be due to inexperience with how quickly statements can be seized upon and misinterpreted. I don't blame the misinterpretation though... The statement did read very plainly as a direct relationship.

My biggest fear when this erupted a few days go was the damage this may do to the relationship. Of course no company will allow an unknown to use their brand without authority and it it seems that this is what the Minex team have inadvertently done. The many people contacting the bank to verify the relationship has complicated the venture now. I'm sure that in the last few days all efforts have been and are being made by the Minex team to calm the parties involved in their contracts, apologise for the misleading publication and assure them the oversight won't be repeated.

I just hope they are able to do so quickly and regain trust with their contacts so the damage is limited.

Back to my first point... Can we not just now draw the line, know our sides of the fence and wait a few weeks to see? There's far too many pages of insults in between the few posts of relevant and interesting arguments