Completely unrelated to yesterday....

[Flaggers]

... Season tickets this season:

Pay by credit card there's a (I think) 5% surcharge since Visa only drip-feed the money to Forest on a game by game basis (or so the club tell us).

So the VAT rate went down by 2.5% in January.

Should people not be receiving this rebate in a timely fashion from one of Visa or Forest?

 

[MaxiRobriguez]

No. Forest owe you nothing.

 

[Annesley Red]

I expect they will knock a bit off the price when we are in League Fcukin One
COME ON DAVIES GET IT SORTED

 

[alabamared]

Unfortunately VAT is applied at the time of invoice and not the time of payment.

 

[Rich]

I think Flagman is making the point that VISA have decided to pay on a 'per game' basis, which strikes me as odd.

Meaning, essentially, season ticket holders who paid by Visa have yet to technically purchase their tickets for this coming week, if that makes sense?

It's all bollocks, of course, designed to stop Forest having to pay handling fees to Visa, instead making people pay in cash.

 

[Flaggers]

Rich. is right. Visa are holding your money, and as such, the ticket price should be lower than originally advertised owing to the 2.5% reduction in VAT.

Between Forest and Visa, there's 2.5-ish percent of about half your season ticket price that should really be returned to the customer, since the price for the goods/service you purchased has reduced before you've paid for it...

Or is this all bollocks?

 

[Rich]

The debate would be as to whether you have bought it or not, at the time in question.

You do have your tickets in hand, and as such could be said to have bought it, which makes me question how Visa can drip feed the money through for something sold as an individual unit.

On the other hand, if visa re doing this, then technically, you've not yet bought the remaining tickets.

If I get chance, I'll speak to some of the people I work with from Visa, and ask them if this is all bollocks/spin or whether Visa have just decided to pick on Forest.

 

[winnits]

Well it's actually a 2.14% difference on shelf edge price from the VAT cut, given that say (for estimating's sake) half the fixtures were played before the VAT change, I guess we should be due a rebate of around 1% of the season ticket fee.

Having said that, I paid cash to avoid them robbing 5% away from me.

 

[Flaggers]

If I get chance, I'll speak to some of the people I work with from Visa, and ask them if this is all bollocks/spin or whether Visa have just decided to pick on Forest.

If you get the chance, I'd be grateful if you could, and interested in any information...thank you!

I recall my dad having a number of protracted discussions with the Ticket Office and Visa over this payment scheme, and he came to the conclusion that one party was full of s**t, and the other party was full of s**t and telling fibs.

I leave it to the reader to decide which one is which...

 

[alabamared]

This is all terribly confusing for a Sunday afternoon :blink:

Basically if and invoice was raised prior to the reduction in VAT rate no matter if it is not paid for ten years then that is the VAT rate that applies. That VAT rate applied is the one in force at the time of the contract of sale not the one a t the time of payment.

Forest will have entered on their VAT return the sale of your season ticket when the sold it to you and will have accounted to the Inland Revenue on that basis. I suspect Forest do their VAT returns monthly so Gordon already has your 17.5%.

Now the moral aspect of Visa hanging on to your money after you have clearly told them that you want it paid to NFFC is very strange and one I have never heard of.

I have to disagree with Rich that the season ticket holders of technically yet to pay for their tickets for coming games. The contract to purchase the ticket was between NFFC and the fan and not Visa. Although there are some funny laws in the UK with regard to CC purchases but I thought they only applied in the case of faulty or none delivered goods.

I now have brain ache!

 

[winnits]

But Forest CLAIM that they don't get the cash until matches have been played - so it can't have been on their VAT returns until that point.

Unless Forest are LYING, of course!

 

[alabamared]

But Forest CLAIM that they don't get the cash until matches have been played - so it can't have been on their VAT returns until that point.

Unless Forest are LYING, of course!

No perhaps I explained badly.

If I sold something to you say last June when the VAT rate was 17.5% then I would report that in my VAT return and send the money to Gordon based on the invoice being raised. I doesn't matter when that invoice is paid the vendor remits the VAT to the IR based on the sale and the raising of the invoice not at the point of receiving the cash.

The liability for VAT arises at the point of sales whether or not the cash is paid at that time.

The small business I have in the UK generally sells to its customers on 60 day terms but the VAT is reported to the IR at the time of invoice which often results in us paying the VAT to the IR before we receive payment from the customer.

 

[winnits]

Ah okay, it doesn't matter anyway because Forest are lying about the drip-feeding of cash by VISA, I'm sure of it.

 

[alabamared]

Ah okay, it doesn't matter anyway because Forest are lying about the drip-feeding of cash by VISA, I'm sure of it.

I suspect you are correct.

 

[Strummer]

I suspect you are correct.

They could well be telling porkies; when yo buy anything on a Credit Card, the card company (for example, Visa) charges a percentage commission (typically 2.5% but it does vary) to the vendor for their services.

The card company will then transfer payments to the vendor, this is quite normal. I've never heard of 'staggered' payments to vendors, as - in theory - as a purchaser, you buy your season ticket at the start of the season, and then in effect you've taken ownership of all the goods (so in theory, the vendor has discharged his responsibilities to you, the purchaser).

Alabamared is spot-on about the VAT too; VAT is charged at the rate prevailing at the invoice date (so for most of us this would be 17.5%) and it is at that rate that Forest will pay to the Inland Revenue. There is no scope for a retrospective reduction in VAT, unfortunately.

 

[Rich]

I have to disagree with Rich that the season ticket holders of technically yet to pay for their tickets for coming games. The contract to purchase the ticket was between NFFC and the fan and not Visa. Although there are some funny laws in the UK with regard to CC purchases but I thought they only applied in the case of faulty or none delivered goods.

The way the club described the scenario was that Visa paid on a weekly basis an agreed sum per game, hence, said ticket has not yet been bought.

The season ticket itself purely represents an agreement to pay for upcoming games between the Club and Visa, in this instance.

For example, we have a contract with MBNA at work. It's been ongoing for some time, however the VAT cut meant that the amount paid/charged changed, even though the contract was negotiated a long time ago, at a set price with ongoing works.

Problems arose when an invoice covered work carried out over the month of the rate change, and two vat rates had to be applied.

Transposing this, it is feasible to assume that as the games haven't yet been played, and as Visa haven't yet (according to Forest) paid for these games, it is right to assume that they should be charged with the new VAT rate.

 

[Lankster]

It's not just Forest who charge this, a lot of clubs do.

I work in the ticket office at Huddersfield Town and we charge the 5% as well (I'm not sure if Forest do but we, and many other clubs, also charge the 5% on debit cards with season tickets). It's a silly situation but it comes down to the banks not trusting football clubs. A few years ago when a lot of clubs went into administration the banks lost out on a fair bit of money with people claiming the money they'd paid for season tickets back. That's when they decided instead of giving the club the full amount they'd drip feed it in installments, and charge the clubs for the pleasure of holding onto it for them. I can't remember how many installments there but I don't think it's on a per match basis, I could be wrong though!

 

[alabamared]

The way the club described the scenario was that Visa paid on a weekly basis an agreed sum per game, hence, said ticket has not yet been bought.

The season ticket itself purely represents an agreement to pay for upcoming games between the Club and Visa, in this instance.

I think that is the incorrect assumption. The contract is between the club and the fan and that is when the sale takes place, even if Visa refused to pay the club (unless due to a misdemeanor by the cardholder) then the club would still have to honour the season ticket. The clubs arrangements with Visa is external to the contract and does not relate to the contract for sale.IMHO.

The example you quote with MBNA I think proves the point, the invoices are raised monthly so that is the point of sale so the VAT rate is the one in force at the time the invoice is raised.

maybe we should refer this to a high court judge!

 

[Rich]

Obviously, it is down to the contracts with Visa, however, should Visa not pay for some reason, I'd be willing to bet that the club wouldn't honour the remaining matches.