Millennium entry fee up xx%

[Robbo]

No i am not as this is a company that has been trading for some time under what ever name you should still be able to find out who does the accounting and what there trading status is and so on.

Syd is right here, the Millennium company as such is not gonna be able to make available those figures just because you want them.
And to be fair to the Millennium Board, what the hell has this got to do with anything when Barry has already explained the circumstances that surrounded the introduction of this tax?

I really don't give a monkeys what conditions they have been trading under, all I care about is how they treat the paying customer and to that end, I think Barry has made clear the Millennium's position.


I will add however, ulrich's position was made untenable a long time ago and nothing has been done about him apart from a 'quiet little chat' regarding his attitude when talking to teams and players.
It is now self-evident ulrich is unable to take direction or act respectfully to people who pay his wages and on that basis, he should be sacked.
I'm afraid this is the point I will take issue with the Millennium because it is incumbent upon the Millennium board to uphold customer service care and attention, they are unable to do this when ulrich interfaces decisions and mandates between the board and customer ... he has to go, end of, no excuses, bye bye, see ya later alligator, or put slightly more eloquently in my language, 'fukk off' !!

 

[Nick Brockdorff]

So Pete...

...You do not take issue with the entire problem of a 17,5 % price increase, due to VAT, being passed on to the customers?

"Oops - sorry - we made a mistake... now you all have to pay 17,5 % more in future" simply does not cut it for me.

ESPECIALLY as a good deal of that money will end up back in the promoters pockets, when they claim the VAT they have paid various suppliers and associates, for fields, netting, venue rent, shipping, insurance, prizes, manpower, etc.

I find it extremely rude to pass the entire cost onto the customers.

What they SHOULD have done, was to drop prices, because they now have to charge VAT.... as a show of them knowing we are not all idiots, and that we know charging VAT also allows them to claim VAT, thereby getting a good deal of the money for themselves at the end of the fiscal year.

Nick

 

[Robbo]

So Pete...

...You do not take issue with the entire problem of a 17,5 % price increase, due to VAT, being passed on to the customers?

"Oops - sorry - we made a mistake... now you all have to pay 17,5 % more in future" simply does not cut it for me.

ESPECIALLY as a good deal of that money will end up back in the promoters pockets, when they claim the VAT they have paid various suppliers and associates, for fields, netting, venue rent, shipping, insurance, prizes, manpower, etc.

I find it extremely rude to pass the entire cost onto the customers.

What they SHOULD have done, was to drop prices, because they now have to charge VAT.... as a show of them knowing we are not all idiots, and that we know charging VAT also allows them to claim VAT, thereby getting a good deal of the money for themselves at the end of the fiscal year.

Nick

Far be it from me to be in a position whereby I am defending the Millennium but I don't think it was a 'mistake' in the sense you are suggesting.
They obviously didn't want to be in a trading position where they had to charge VAT (aggravation factor at least) and so were negotiating with the relevant authorities (as I understand it).
The talks had come to a point where the VAT people would not allow the Millennium guys to trade without charging the tax and so this explains the timing and I don't think it can be classified as a mistake, that's a little unfair I think.

As you say though, they will be able to claim a tax offset dependant upon expenditure and there is certainly room here for them to soften the blow and I do think they haven't thought this through enough.
I don't know the scale of their expenditure and so I don't know how much they can claw back.

But as I said Nick, I don't have to pay this and I did suggest you pick up this side of things and I'll stay focused on ulrich von gestapo

 

[Russell Smith]

As much as I sometimes wish the MS became cost prohibitive to the teams so players would stop fooling themselves in thinking it is the be all and end all of European paintball, I do not think they have had any choice in this matter, but that does not mean that teams have to pay it!
Now would be an appropriate time for the so called sponsors of teams (and they do not have to be paintball companies as long as they are VAT registered in a EEC country) to show real support.
If a teams entry was paid by the company who supports them they would be able to reclaim the vat element as long as they was provided with a vat invoice.
You would have to pay the entry fee to the vat registered sponsor but that could be done quite legally by purchasing a box of paint for whatever the entry fee may be.

There is also a way that they could have not been in this position at all and no teams (or anyone else for that matter) would have had to pay any vat.
If anyone from the Millennium Series would like that information - my fees a very reasonable


Russ

 

[Buddha 3]

I'd take that notion one step further. Instead of relying on the "c'mon mate, you already sponsor us, could we run this bill through you?" tactics, now is the time for teams to become offcial clubs/organisations/small businesses/whatever applies.
That's the way it's done with pretty much all other sports at any sort of somewhat serious level. So this is an excellent time to start taking yourself and your team seriously.

Plus it'll allow you to claim back the VAT on many other things too.

 

[Robbo]

As much as I sometimes wish the MS became cost prohibitive to the teams so players would stop fooling themselves in thinking it is the be all and end all of European paintball, I do not think they have had any choice in this matter, but that does not mean that teams have to pay it!
Now would be an appropriate time for the so called sponsors of teams (and they do not have to be paintball companies as long as they are VAT registered in a EEC country) to show real support.
If a teams entry was paid by the company who supports them they would be able to reclaim the vat element as long as they was provided with a vat invoice.
You would have to pay the entry fee to the vat registered sponsor but that could be done quite legally by purchasing a box of paint for whatever the entry fee may be.

There is also a way that they could have not been in this position at all and no teams (or anyone else for that matter) would have had to pay any vat.
If anyone from the Millennium Series would like that information - my fees a very reasonable

Russ

Russ, your post raises some interesting points here because if what you say is true, in that you know of an avoidance device whereby this tax doesn't have to be paid, then if the Millennium board are telling the truth in that they didn't really want to charge the tax then there is an opportunity for them to work with you to find a solution where the teams do not have to pay the VAT.

Russell, whilst I understand your need to hold back the details, it would prove extremely useful for you to declare that this tax avoidance device is appropriate and available to all the teams.

Now, if this is the case, if the Millennium board then ignore this opportunity to not only investigate this device but also implement it, it would then tend to indicate that they see this price hike as merely a device for raising prices.
Could you then please come back on here and post something to the effect this device is bone fide.
Hmmmm, we shall we what happens and I look forward to your next post.

 

[Russell Smith]

Pete,

Tried to call you mate to explain how it could work, give us a bell one evening and I will tell you how.
I am concerned that they have decided to add the vat this season when you would think that the vat man would have made a decision about this as soon as they could have and because it is a commercial venture I would think the entry fees would have been designated a vatable income from the start, just like entry fees to a rec ball site would be.
The PA has a vat sport exception and that means as much as we have to pay vat on outgoings we do not have to charge vat to players or trade.


Russ

 

[mikecbrxx]

I'd take that notion one step further. Instead of relying on the "c'mon mate, you already sponsor us, could we run this bill through you?" tactics, now is the time for teams to become offcial clubs/organisations/small businesses/whatever applies.
That's the way it's done with pretty much all other sports at any sort of somewhat serious level. So this is an excellent time to start taking yourself and your team seriously.

Plus it'll allow you to claim back the VAT on many other things too.

You got to be a bit careful here as if your taxable turnover is way below the threshold, you can be forced to de-register.....I believe.

We could do with a tax expert giving an opinion......I'll ask mine and get back to you.

 

[Buddha 3]

Don't forget that things work differently in different countries...

Still, I personally think it would be a good thing for teams to become legitimate. It's the first step towards professionalisation.

 

[MissyQ]

The teams are effectively Retail clients. There is no Vat charged on retail sales, vat is included in the sale, but it is not 'added'. VAT can only be paid once, at the highest value that the goods are eventually sold for, everyone else in the chain gets to reclaim the vat except the retail customer, who is normally unaware that they are even paying the vat, because like I said, it is included in the retail price.
Technically if the teams set up businesses, and become 'wholesale customers' who would expect to pay vat, they should also expect a better price, as they are now buying at 'trade'

Basically if, as claimed, the league is now having to pay Vat and wasn't before, then their overhead just went up about 20%, as they are 'eating the vat' at the more expensive end. It would make far more sense to just raise the price 17.5% and leave it at that. Someone has to pay that vat, but only once, there is no escaping it unfortunately. It looks like they are making an attempt to explain the problem by just adding vat, so at least it looks like they are being fair, but at the end of the day no-one likes a price-rise and thats what it is...