From what I can see there is only one way this can feasibly pan out (which I'll come to across the post) and it won't be significant enough to cause large waves across the league (by footballing means I.e. helping us kick on).
First though - there is only one way that, us really kicking on (financially) could happen: through APTs/RPTs being opened up until the new rulings are agreed on and implemented. How FMV is calculated would then have to be with consideration of other sports and subsequently the amount being spent by the Saudi's on other sports. Which is kind of a beauty is in the eye of the beholder situation and also which I severely doubt would factor in their decision making given they already appear to be in cahoots with certain league members and so any respective commercial deals would be with consideration to the size and history of a club versus existing deals for the existing "elite".
Which brings me to (as I understand) the most likely solution: If clubs cannot be punished retrospectively for actions they've taken with regards to shareholder loans. Then the only way to fairly balance the playing field (for those operating without this financial input) is to constrain them now, based on the application of any historical, financial shortfallings. To do so, they may need to (even temporarily) extend the PSR rulings to take them beyond 3 years in order to calculate the respective interest that should have been applied from 2021 onwards and have them applied to the next footballing seasons' PSR calculations. For (theoretical) example, if Brighton loaned £100m in 2021 and the rate was 0.1% then £100k would be added, if they had another loan of £100m in 2022 at 1% and had only paid back £50m from the previous year then they'd factor in £1.5m, etc. etc.
But as you can see, unless the borrowing took a significant incline when the rates did to nearer 5-10% this is very unlikely to have any impact - with the salary of just one periphery player being cut would probably resolve that issue.
The league, its members and football fans, generally, probably do not wish to entirely lose the whole APT/RPT restrictions on the whole, and presumably would rather refine them so to keep the competitivity of the game, and commercially, this would also mean that the "product" retains its entertainment value. Taking bias, Man City and Newcastle in particular would argue why other clubs have been allowed to spend their respective fortunes to establish dominance but they are restricted from doing so - Newcastle United in particular.
So ultimately, financially and from a subsequent footballing point of view - the only way the likes of Newcastle can now "catch up" is within investment in club infrastructure and somehow convincing mid-top end players to come here over the next decade with ambitions capped at potentially playing with no European football at the bottom end and Champions League football and a potential cup run at the top end, whilst infrastructure catches up. Good luck selling that to ambitious youngsters.
And thus the status quo is maintained unless APT/RPT is blown open, even, albeit for a brief period and even if it was, the issue just moves to the next club after Newcastle or indeed to us, after Man City.
That brings me to the Premier League: One thing they cannot now escape is a legal battle versus any of the leagues incumbents from the last 3 seasons (26 teams if I have calculated correctly).
In the first instance, clubs such as Man City and Newcastle may seek compensation of APTs/RPTs to bring them back in line with where they would have been financially, given that elements of the APT/FMV rulings have been deemed unlawful. This would enable Newcastle to catch up in particular with extended transfer capabilities in upcoming transfer windows. It would also allow Man City to further assert dominance over those they're directly competing with.
They're the easiest and obvious clubs.
You then have a real quagmire (giggidy) of clubs who would have either had increased, or decreased revenue based on league standing which could extend from just 1 or 2 million for mediocre/mid-table sides to tens of millions where relegation is considered.
Said clubs cannot be reprimanded historically, so the only way to balance the playing field is to award compensation to those who should rightfully receive it.
Now how this is paid, I simply have no clue. In simplest of terms - the Premier League would have to. However, their investment is presumably through commercial deals and a degree of paying into the league to be one of the (said) members. Other clubs won't want to pay additional to cover said costs, therefore it would have to be through their own (PL) commercial deals and revenue. Will businesses be willing to pay extra to field that cost to clubs? Presumably not.
So the Premier League's growth as a product is completely stunted, unless quality is continued to be added through clubs being able to afford the best players etc. And so there's a chicken and egg element.
All the while - the league has lost all credibility and trust from what I suspect is the majority of its members. Which for me, means that a combination of the two basically destroys and burns the Premier League to the ground, with the immediate removal of Masters the first desperate attempt to appease its members.
The demise of the Premier League then leads to the "big 6" having more fluidity to join a Super League (presumably) without any existing league structure in place for England's "elite" 20 sides. Unless the FA immediately step in to create the equivalent as a governing body, which then leaves it down to fans and law to prevent such a "super league" (with Europe's elite) from being devised.
So in summary, (if you're still awake and my understanding of it all is all correct) we need to ask ourselves (as Newcastle fans) if we want the league to be more competitive or we want to blow it out the water? Maybe the latter for a short while before new rules are implemented? But one thing is for absolute certain English football needs rebuilding.
