08 Aug 2026 13:09:22.
Not Liverpool related but what are everyone’s thoughts on the spending rules in the PL?
Newcastle have seen Tonali, Bruno, Gordon and Isak leave over recent windows despite being backed by PIF.
Seems as though the rules are in place to keep the Big 6 in place.
And on Bruno G., how many midfielders does Arteta need?
Rice, Odegaard, Zubimendi, Bruno G., Merino and that’s without looking at adding in the likes of Eze or others could play as a 10.
Arsenal building from a position of strength?
08 Aug 2026 14:15:48
Arsenal showing how it's done, while we have Hughes who hasn't a clue what he's doing. Should have been removed along with Slot.
08 Aug 2026 14:18:45
Newcastle's owners lost interest in the project a year into the ownership. The growth of the Saudi Pro League meant that Newcastle became less interesting to PIF.
It's unfortunate for Newcastle and their fans. I wouldn't be surprised to see them divest or even sell.
08 Aug 2026 14:44:00
I've seen a lot of people complain that the rules are only there to help the big 6, which I really don't think is true. I can see why people would think that, as the rules are set in such a way that they don't help the lower clubs. I don't think that's intentional; I think it's an inherent part of trying to regulate spending. It's difficult to come up with a rule set that both limits clubs from just buying their way to the top, doesn't prevent fair investment, and also doesn't show favouritism.
People are complaining that PSR (or whatever it's called now) is unfair, but don't forget it's not long ago we were all crying out for regulation, back when Chelsea and City bought their way to success. You can't have your cake and eat it, apparantly.
Could we come up with a better system? Possibly, a fixed cap, a luxury tax, shared revenue, or tiered ceilings? I mean, 1 of those is a definite no for me.
I'm all for fair competition, but I can't see a set of rules that doesn't include some sort of system that is inherently tiered in a way that favours clubs with less revenue. Personally I'd be all for a better solution, but you have to see the issue. People will ask, 'What's the point in the rules if there's literally a different one for everybody?' And it's a fair question. People will also claim it's unfair that those who do worse get to spend more. So do we adopt some new pseudo-American standard that essentially nullifies a club's hard-working success or just go back to having a free-for-all, giving anybody the opportunity to just buy the league? It's not so easily resolved in my eyes.
08 Aug 2026 16:07:47
I don't think the PIF has lost interest in Newcastle, actually, but they came in at an unfortunate time, when spending is regulated, and they can't just pump endless money into the club like Chelsea and City did. They had to be a bit more strategic in increasing the revenue of Newcastle, which they have done slowly.
However, recent world events have also hit Saudi hard, which has limited the amount of investment they can pump into Newcastle or their own league for that matter, with the PIF forced to cut back spending in certain sectors in favour of others.
08 Aug 2026 16:18:31
Arsenal are buying their way into trouble. Odegard, Ese, Merino rotating for one spot seems like three unhappy players. Zubimendi won't get a sniff as long as Rice and Bruno are fit. And they'll accentuate their defensive streak, for sure.