Hall of Famer
- Dec 22, 2009
- AFL Club
- Other Teams
- Socceroos, LFC, MVFC, RC Strasbourg
I doubt it will be defined as a country, more so a limit on the amount of owner related income (not just IAS24 related companies). In the case of Newcastle that's Saudi investment fund related businesses. In United's case that is any Glazer owned business and for Liverpool any FSG owned business. In the interest of fairness none of those clubs should all of a sudden be allowed to bring in a huge amount of related commercial 3rd party revenue.The league may well look to change their rules on related party transactions. UEFA changed theirs, from memory you can't have more than 30% of your revenue from a particular country (presumably UK doesn't apply).
I think they'll struggle to piece together a legally binding definition that achieves what it wants but time will tell.
And it would be telling that in order to make our sponsorship deals related party transactions the league would have to totally rewrite the rules. Maybe a.small concession there that after 10 years and countless posts suggesting they were related party transactions that you got it wrong.
As for the reasons we abstained, you can go down the vibe route again if you like. I suspect if we thought our deals were at risk we would have fought a bit harder, even for a temporary rule change.