Simon Jordan criticises Premier League rules for protecting big six
Simon Jordan criticises Premier League rules for big six

Former Crystal Palace owner Simon Jordan has once again criticised the Premier League's financial rules, claiming they protect the 'big six' and limit the transfer-market ambition of clubs like Aston Villa and Newcastle United.

Both Villa and Newcastle have lost key players this transfer window. Villa, who won the Europa League and finished fourth last season, have shown limited flexibility in the market, highlighting the disparity in the rules.

Contrast with Chelsea and Tottenham Spending

Tottenham and Chelsea endured poor seasons last term, with Spurs escaping relegation on the final day and Chelsea finishing 10th. Yet Chelsea have signed Morgan Rogers from Villa for £117 million, a British transfer record, while Spurs have spent £230 million on new signings.

Wide Pickt banner — collaborative shopping lists app for Telegram, phone mockup with grocery list

Villa, in contrast, have spent £52 million on Johan Manzambi, Rogers' replacement, and £35 million on Joao Gomes, who came in for Youri Tielemans, who left for Manchester United for the same fee.

Villa's Transfer Activity

Alejandro Garnacho has joined on loan with a conditional obligation to buy, while Zion Suzuki is expected to replace Emi Martinez, and Matteo Ruggeri to provide cover after Lucas Digne's departure. Villa would also like to sign Joao Palhinha on loan from Bayern Munich to cover for the injured Amadou Onana, while Aaron Wan-Bissaka is a target at right-back.

Jordan's Criticism of Financial Fair Play

"I felt that Newcastle weren't going to be in a position to challenge the legacy clubs because they're not being allowed to," Jordan told talkSPORT. "It's grotesquely unfair that the Liverpools, the Arsenals, the Manchester Uniteds, Man Citys, the Spurs can spend as much money as they wish."

"No one else can because they can generate the turnover because they're now seeded. So Aston Villa and Newcastle can get on with it. They can't do what Chelsea did. They can't do what Man City did, which was break up the orthodoxy of Arsenal and Manchester United and because they can't buy their way into the positions that Man City and Chelsea were able to do."

"You can't build a team to challenge in perpetuity and be a top side. It is absolutely the fault of the Man Uniteds and Arsenals because they dressed up the idea of financial fair play as some governance to retain the sanity of the game and it's nothing of the sort."

"It's unfair. It's pulling up the drawbridge and saying to everybody else 'We're in the room now and you can't join'."

Pickt after-article banner — collaborative shopping lists app with family illustration