Supposedly financial fair play is a thing. But it seems to be a futile gesture that merely pulls the drawbridge up for any clubs who secure investment, unless clubs find loop-holes. So the rich stay rich, and everyone else is a selling club.

Chelsea and Manchester City had substantial outside investment to kick start their empires, but theirs came prior to the rule change. In theory, regardless of how rich Palace's owners are, we couldn't do what Chelsea did around 2003/2004.

However, UEFA knowledge it doesn't work in it's current format:

[Link]

I'd guess this is to halt PSG, but they also seem to dislike Manchester City.

I have a feeling Mike Ashley spent so little on Newcastle that they can actually spend a lot and be within the rules. But seems more likely they'll just exploit the back door a la PSG.

I can't believe I'm actually going to say this... but Chelsea are an immaculately-run club. They focus on youth development, and they are self-sustainable - more so than Palace have been. We bought players who aged and had no-resale value. Chelsea make millions from loans, sales, sell-on clauses. Chelsea couldn't have got where they are today without Abramovich, but they are now a sustainable part of the elite, unlike Real Madrid and Barcelona.

It's easy to dislike City and Chelsea, but I personally cannot stand the arrogance of Real Madrid, and I do not give a s*** that they're f***ed. They're old money and they can't keep up. Why is new money less respectable than the established elite?

Bizarrely, Newcastle just don't seem to have a plan. Despite how long it took them to complete the sale, and having seen what Manchester City and Chelsea and PSG have done in the past, they seem to have bought a club, and now they're working out what to do next. I thought they'd have had their staff lined up months ago.

I must admit, I've been trying to devise a theory which would be closer to the American draft system so that we have a more equitable Premier League. The best I can come up with is a form of 'Fantasy League' system whereby each player within a squad has a recognised value (balance sheet value?), and each match determines what players can be picked. For example if two teams are set to play each other and have the same rough squad value, then they can play whichever players they like. If a rich team has to play a 'lesser' team then their players value can only be, say, twice that of the opposing team. Therefore, when Man City play Norwich, Man City would be restricted as to who they can play (possibly even having to bring in junior players to make the cut). Yes, I know it's a big change but we as punters are already used to picking fantasy football teams with restricted values...and some of the big clubs are perhaps already using a similar system for early cup rounds.

hats off to palace, they were always gonna be louder, and hate to say it but they were impressive ALL bouncing and singing.

so long as audience figures for the Prem are massive ( and they are )...the money will continue to flow.

many other European leagues consist of a few big fish in a small pond. And a bunch of minnows to be their punchbag every Saturday.

I reckon the measure of any league is 'how good are the teams at the bottom of the league'. And by this measure the Prem trounces everybody else.

As Man City found out last weekend, there are no easy games in the Prem. When Real Madrid hosts Celta Vigo ? maybe an easy 3 points.

Eze Peasy at Anfield....

The battle for fairness was lost when the PL was formed cutting adrift the rest of the FL.

At the time various pundits predicted this was just the start and so it appears. There have been various attempts by the big 6 to reduce the size of the PL and to create a European Super League. As part of the carrot they have tried to create a PL2 made up of the big clubs outside of the PL.

Sadly it is only a matter of time before one of these initiatives succeeds. Billionaires do not buy clubs to play fair.

The only hope we have is for the government to step in and disband the FA and form a new body which has legal power over all professional football clubs. I doubt this will happen as the PL clubs have deep pockets and will fight this in the courts for years.

In short it's too much trouble for politicians to do anything about.

One more point

One thing I forgot o mention was what happens when a club goes bankrupt and goes into receivership. I believe this happened to Palace perhaps 10 years ago. The penalty is a 10 point deduction. This makes no sense. It's not the players, manager or staffs fault. All this does is set the team up for relegation. If I remember Palace survived that year. If a professional team in the States goes bankrupt the league takes over until a buyer can be found which turns out to be fairly easy. Can someone explain the PL's policy to me.