Sage News and Discussion

 View Only
  • 1.  An update from Sage on the status of third party c

    Posted 02-10-2014 05:37
      |   view attached
    An update from Sage on the status of third party credit card integrations http://www.linkedin.com/groupItem?view=&gid=106271&type=member&item=5834973252195205124&qid=486840ab-4e44-4646-9c9f-4f2897c94f71&trk=groups_items_see_more-0-b-ttl


  • 2.  RE: An update from Sage on the status of third party c

    Posted 02-10-2014 10:51
    Thank you for posting this Wayne. It is a very informative discussion.


  • 3.  RE: An update from Sage on the status of third party c

    Posted 02-10-2014 11:04
    I was really surprised to learn of SPS exception proceedure. Seems it only applies if the customer doesn't qualify for SPS. So if the customer finds a better rate outside of SPS they won't be allowed the exception and are still locked into the SPS rates.


  • 4.  RE: An update from Sage on the status of third party c

    Posted 02-10-2014 13:33
    Isn't the bottom line on this for 2013 and later: 1. The other merchant vendors (APS, Century) are not lying when they say they can integrate their vaults to Sage 100. 2. The nature of their integrations into Sage 100 might be different from SPS, and Sage won't support that. 3. A good 90 Minds Partner can make it happen (change to a new merchant vendor) because we know the issues and tricks. Am I missing something?


  • 5.  RE: An update from Sage on the status of third party c

    Posted 09-18-2014 14:57
      |   view attached
    Started a process on 8/5 with SPS for a customer looking to finally move from 3.71 to 2014, but not wanting to change credit card processing from their bank who they are happy with. Finally got the third party agreement after sending another email this morning expressing how difficult it is to recommend a company that is this nonresponsive - many pages of legalese, and the fees: $150/hour setup (no mention of how many hours expected) $60/month $.10/transaction including preauth and postauth as separate transactions, even charged for declines. Oh, and the claim that it's brand new but the doc is dated last year...