City launch legal action against the Premier League | Club & PL reach settlement | Proceedings dropped (p1147)

ancoats said:
Question ?

If a player signs for a club and his fee is broken down over 5 years does the selling club have to put the full amount in the season revenue when they sold him or only put the amount the buying club pay each year into the season revenue
Click to expand...
Full amount and if it’s paid in instalments then the VAT is paid in one period full amount So a £50 fee could be paid over a few years but the VAT £10M has to be paid to HMRC up front but of course the buying club claims it back anyhow
 
Would have thought yesterday or today would have been good days to bury news
 
Ric said:
Don’t think there’s anything particularly revelatory or new in this, but contains a bit of detail about City’s claim:

Click to expand...


:) Ring-fenced my arse. Everything is ring-fenced until you get a couple of beers (sorry, Martinis. It's marketing) inside you. Speaking from experience.
 
Gordyola said:
Full amount and if it’s paid in instalments then the VAT is paid in one period full amount So a £50 fee could be paid over a few years but the VAT £10M has to be paid to HMRC up front but of course the buying club claims it back anyhow
Click to expand...
Vat only applies to domestic transfers as I understand, is that correct?
 
The article appears to confirm that we've lost commercial income due to Nielsen vetoing or revaluing deals. Nielsen were also involved in the original PSG issue over their sponsorship with the Qatar Tourist Authority.

PSG struck a deal with QTA for about €100m per annum but UEFA's chosen consultant, Octagon, valued this deal at €5m per annum. PSG disputed that (and it does sound low) so Leterme allowed then to get an alternative valuation, which Nielsen provided. That was very much closer to the €100m but, despite having been given a much lower valuation by the company appointed by UEFA, Leterme waved that higher one through without a challenge.

It smelled to high heaven and it also begs the question of whether Nielsen tell their clients what they want to hear, rather than being objective.
 
Last edited:
Prestwich_Blue said:
The article appears to confirm that we've lost commercial income due to Nielsn vetoing or revaluing deals. Nielsen were also involved in the original PSG issue over their sponsorship with the Qatar Tourist Authority.

PSG struck a deal with QTA for about €100m per annum but UEFA's chosen consultant, Octagon, valued this deal at €5m per annum. PSG disputed that (and it does sound low) so Leterme allowed then to get an alternative valuation, which Nielsen provided. That was very much closer to the €100m but, despite having been given a much lower valuation by the company appointed by UEFA, Leterme waved that higher one through without a challenge.

It smelled to high heaven and it also begs the question of whether Nielsen tell their clients what they want to hear, rather than being objective.
Click to expand...

Not forgetting José Narciso da Cunha Rodrigues (the judge who was also in charge of our case and chair of the CFCB) tried to reject the agreement/deal that PSG and the Investigatory panel had made, tried to reopen the case which would have absolutely fucked PSG permanently - they'd have failed by €200m+++, but that was blocked at CAS because UEFA have an internal rule of cases needing to be reopened within 7 days of the decision and mysteriously it didn't arrive on da Cunha Rodrigues desk until after that deadline had passed.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
The article appears to confirm that we've lost commercial income due to Nielsn vetoing or revaluing deals. Nielsen were also involved in the original PSG issue over their sponsorship with the Qatar Tourist Authority.

PSG struck a deal with QTA for about €100m per annum but UEFA's chosen consultant, Octagon, valued this deal at €5m per annum. PSG disputed that (and it does sound low) so Leterme allowed then to get an alternative valuation, which Nielsen provided. That was very much closer to the €100m but, despite having been given a much lower valuation by the company appointed by UEFA, Leterme waved that higher one through without a challenge.

It smelled to high heaven and it also begs the question of whether Nielsen tell their clients what they want to hear, rather than being objective.
Click to expand...
Decades ago I did data modelling for Unilever, they used Nielsen sales data extensively, After months of the data not making any sense (selling more to public than shipping wholesale) It emerged Nielsen were using the same sales data for multiple clients and just switching the brands round based on who the customer was as "that's what they thought the marketing folks wanted to see". of course they may have cleaned up their act over the decades but I very much doubt it and your last line is as prevalent as ever.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
The article appears to confirm that we've lost commercial income due to Nielsn vetoing or revaluing deals. Nielsen were also involved in the original PSG issue over their sponsorship with the Qatar Tourist Authority.

PSG struck a deal with QTA for about €100m per annum but UEFA's chosen consultant, Octagon, valued this deal at €5m per annum. PSG disputed that (and it does sound low) so Leterme allowed then to get an alternative valuation, which Nielsen provided. That was very much closer to the €100m but, despite having been given a much lower valuation by the company appointed by UEFA, Leterme waved that higher one through without a challenge.

It smelled to high heaven and it also begs the question of whether Nielsen tell their clients what they want to hear, rather than being objective.
Click to expand...
The adjudicatory chamber were livid at Leterme and appealed to CAS against themselves. Guffaws all round. It was this case, I assume, that persuaded UEFA to dispense with Leterme’s services.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top