Luis Suarez - Non LFC

[el matador]

Surely you don't pay local taxes for overseas purchases?

Liverpool will have received £75m plus for Suarez including the VAT. barca reclaim that VAT back in Spain or at least some of it back.

[el matador]

[ame]https://twitter.com/LFCFansCorner/status/714391934949834752[/ame]

[Fosterbloke]

Not sure if this relevant or accurate -

"The transfer of footballers is subject to VAT in the same way as any other goods or services. Domestic transfers in the UK are taxable at the 17.5% standard rate. However, transfers between football clubs in the EU are relieved of VAT. Sales from a UK club to a buyer outside the EU are also free of VAT, although if a UK club buys a player from outside the EU it must account for VAT on the purchase.

The transfer window has no real effect on the VAT position. If a club has a December VAT period, but wants to buy a player in the first week of January it could bring the tax point forward by requesting a VAT invoice from the selling club on 31 December. Of course, this might meant that the selling club has to pay its VAT three months earlier.
Read more at http://www.taxationweb.co.uk/forum/football-transfers-t22078.html#2cTOhj8Ryu5jws4r.99"

[el matador]

That's interesting.

I couldn't be bothered to read all of this but some info re ronaldos sale to real Madrid and its VAT implication.

http://www.taxation.co.uk/taxation/Articles/2009/07/01/247071/80-million-plus-vat

I think it says something along the lines that clubs can charge vat and where it has been charged the paying club can reclaim it back. £78m sounds a lot better than £65m even if £13m goes straight to the govt.

[G]

Ian Ayre is doing a wonderful job in the eyes of many though

[Boogs]

**** you Wenger and your 40 mil plus one pound you cheeky cunt.

We got 64 mil. Yes not as much as we'd have liked but he had just bitten another footballer yet again and he wasn't able to play for a number of games so our bargaining position wasn't perhaps as advantageous as it could have been.

[Kenneth]

He wanted off and we got what we could get for him. To assume anything else is just guessing from a position of ignorance.

[G]

It appears Barca also paid the sell on clause we had with Ajax which was another £8.5m, they just didn't pay it to us but paid direct to Ajax. So 65m odd and 8.5m odd was the fee. If they had paid us that money we would still have owed it to Ajax.

[Norbs]

**** you Wenger and your 40 mil plus one pound you cheeky cunt.

We got 64 mil. Yes not as much as we'd have liked but he had just bitten another footballer yet again and he wasn't able to play for a number of games so our bargaining position wasn't perhaps as advantageous as it could have been.

This, unfortunately

[Norbs]

It appears Barca also paid the sell on clause we had with Ajax which was another £8.5m, they just didn't pay it to us but paid direct to Ajax. So 65m odd and 8.5m odd was the fee. If they had paid us that money we would still have owed it to Ajax.

It's the 3rd largest transfer in the history of the game and we were on the receiving end. Nothing to argue about really

[RichC]

£65M or £75M either way Barca got a great deal. If only we'd used the money better

[Maxiedge]

Not a fan of Ayre but his bite on Chiellini in the WC didn't help matters.

[G]

I'd argue the clause was too low. Spurs had sold Bale the summer before for more than the clause was set for and Suarez was twice the player of Bale even at that stage.

This was before he bit someone again too. When he signed his new deal he was always going the following summer imo but if we'd already agreed to sell him that summer why did he need to bite? I don't agree with people who think it was premeditated on his part.

[Shaggy]

I'd argue the clause was too low. Spurs had sold Bale the summer before for more than the clause was set for and Suarez was twice the player of Bale even at that stage.

This was before he bit someone again too. When he signed his new deal he was always going the following summer imo but if we'd already agreed to sell him that summer why did he need to bite? I don't agree with people who think it was premeditated on his part.

[Maxiedge]

I'd argue the clause was too low. Spurs had sold Bale the summer before for more than the clause was set for and Suarez was twice the player of Bale even at that stage.

This was before he bit someone again too. When he signed his new deal he was always going the following summer imo but if we'd already agreed to sell him that summer why did he need to bite? I don't agree with people who think it was premeditated on his part.

Oh yep sorry you're right. Getting my timeline mixed up