The devil is in the detail with these things, the one that has been pushed out suggests spending will be capped at a multiple the lowest clubs revenue, say 5 times the value.
To me this just seems like bollocks.
It could mean even the lowest club can spend 5 times its broadcasting revenue. Another model suggests a % of income.
1. In the first option clubs can make losses if they can sustain them, just what Newcastle want2. In the second option, you can manipulate your income, just like Chelsea did with their hotels and City did up to 115 times.
If the rule is to make sense it is to protect clubs from excessive spending, even if they (inititally often) have the money. Everton thought they had the money then Russia invaded Ukraine, it also impacted on Chelsea but they got lucky. Newcastle could go out and spend £1bn but if Saudi suddenly found themselves in a different political zone (highly possible), Newcastle could get left high and dry (we wish)
The rules should be closer to what they are now, limiting losses. But (and this is like VAR), it's not the rules that are the problem, it's the people implementing them.
Making up penalties after the event, lack of clarity on the rules, allowing loopholes (ie Chelsea), not punishing in line with the rules (City). It's the PL (again) that are the problem.
