I appreciate the years of committee work behind the 2025 update and welcome the discussion that my article has sparked . What I welcome less is the turn to personal characterisation. Labels such as “histrionic” do not advance the debate. The issues I raised are grounded in the wording of the 2025 form, in EU law, and in many years of hands-on charter experience for owners. Below I restate the points calmly and precisely, and I offer practical fixes that would benefit owners, charterers and brokers alike.

1) The real pre-funding problem is the charter fee, not the APA
My central point concerns liquidity risk created by the new payment and complaints mechanics. Under the 2025 structure, a material portion of the charter fee reaches the owner only after the charter and is subject to a hold if a written complaint is lodged within the stipulated window; if arbitration is noticed in time, funds may remain blocked until an award. That is not rhetoric – it is how the payment waterfall is designed. It means owners shoulder operating costs during the season while a meaningful part of the consideration is effectively post-dated and claims-sensitive.

Constructive fix: Special Conditions stating that the stakeholder may withhold only the objectively disputed portion (supported by contemporaneous evidence), must release the undisputed balance immediately, and that any hold lapses unless arbitration is formally commenced within a short, defined period (for example 14 days).

2) AML/KYC: regulation is right – operational coupling to cashflows needs guardrails
No one disputes the need for sanctions screening, KYC and data protection. The 2025 form, however, operationalises compliance by allowing stakeholder/broker to decline receipt or release of funds until KYC clearance is complete, with cancellation risks if a replacement stakeholder is not promptly installed. In peak season, a single delayed document can stall a departure.

At the same time, the new EU anti-money-laundering framework requires multi-year retention of core customer-due-diligence data. Any privacy narrative therefore must distinguish AML/KYC data (retained as required by law) from non-essential personal data (minimised and deleted swiftly).

Constructive fix: Special Conditions introducing KYC cut-off dates (for example T-21/T-14), a fallback stakeholder mechanism if the first provider cannot clear in time, and a data schedule that (i) mirrors AML retention duties and (ii) minimises all other personal data.

3) Force majeure: modernised triggers – now add clear safe harbours
The updated force-majeure language rightly recognises cyber events and public-authority closures alongside traditional disablement. What is still missing are clean timing safe harbours: “notice within 48 hours where reasonably practicable; supporting documentation within 7 days unless objectively impossible”, plus coordinated surveyor access. Clarity here reduces avoidable disputes for both sides.

4) Entire Agreement: fewer disputes – more documentation discipline
The 2025 form’s “entire agreement” clause is defensible as a matter of contract hygiene. Its practical effect is that pre-contract broker assurances do not count unless they are written into the Special Conditions. That is precisely why my article urges owners and brokers to elevate every material promise (toys, tenders, response times, permitted deviations, inspection windows) into the contract text. This is not alarmism – it is good housekeeping.

5) Stakeholder accounts: label ≠ protection
Calling an account “designated” does not make it a true client/trust account that is insolvency-remote and segregated. Best-practice codes in adjacent maritime markets spell out trust wording, segregation, no set-off/no lien, and audit rights. If we want to reduce systemic risk for all parties, we should lift that standard into superyacht charter.

Constructive fix: A Special Condition requiring a regulated client/escrow account (for example law-firm escrow or equivalent), express trust wording, segregation, no set-off/no lien, and owner audit rights.

6) “Monopoly” versus de-facto standardisation
In my article I spoke expressly of a de-facto monopoly. That matters. No one claims MYBA is a legal monopoly; rather, platform and listing practices, broker workflows and market expectations make the MYBA form the default gateway for prime-market exposure. Vessels not on MYBA terms are often simply not on-boarded. That could be seen as gatekeeping by network effects; it is not an allegation of illegality. We can acknowledge this reality while still celebrating the efficiencies of standardisation – and while making space for owner-protective refinements.

7) EU consumer law: precision over polemics
Where the charterer is a consumer, EU law imposes non-waivable safeguards: the consumer’s home-state mandatory rules apply alongside any chosen law; home-court options are protected; and pre-dispute arbitration clauses may face enforcement hurdles in some jurisdictions. At the same time, most yacht charters qualify as fixed-date leisure services, so there is no statutory cooling-off right – but there are robust pre-contract information duties. My proposed EU Consumer Annex is not “part of the MYBA form” and never claimed to be; it is a pragmatic add-on that (i) meets transparency duties (ii) recognises the consumer’s forum choices and (iii) aligns remedies and timelines to reduce parallel-proceeding risk.

A practical path forward
• Escrow upgraded: regulated client/trust account; only disputed sums are held; prompt release of the rest.•
• KYC that doesn’t choke operations: fixed cut-offs, fallback stakeholder, clear responsibilities.
• FM safe harbours: short, workable notice and evidence periods; explicit cyber coverage.
• Write it down: all material promises live in the Special Conditions.
• Consumer clarity: a short, plain-English annex for B2C use only, reflecting EU realities without rewriting the core form.

I respect the work that has gone into the 2025 update and I agree with much of its direction. My critique is not an attack on MYBA; it is a call to address four concrete pressure points – payment holds, KYC gating, force-majeure timing and stakeholder protections – so that the industry’s leading template delivers the security it promises in practice, not just on paper.

Thanks for continuing the discussion in good faith.

As an open-source platform we offer an industry-wide invitation to anyone and everyone in our sector to share their knowledge, experience and opinions. So if you have an interesting and valuable contribution to make, and would like to join our growing community of guest columnists, share your ideas with us at newsdesk@thesuperyachtgroup.com

Profile links

MYBA The Worldwide Yachting Association

Click here to become part of The Superyacht Group community, and join us in our mission to make this industry accessible to all, and prosperous for the long-term. We are offering access to the superyacht industry’s most comprehensive and longstanding archive of business-critical information, as well as a comprehensive, real-time superyacht fleet database, for just £10 per month, because we are One Industry with One Mission. Sign up here.