Elliot Anderson was always going to go on and flourish.

But when Newcastle United reluctantly sold the midfielder to Nottingham Forest to avoid a breach of profit and sustainability rule (PSR) in 2024, club executives were still somewhat relieved they had kept hold of their more established names.

This side have been taken apart in the past 12 months, however, and several key figures have wanted to move on.

Alexander Isak pushed to join Liverpool for a British record £125m last summer.

Anthony Gordon completed a £69m switch to Barcelona before the window even opened.

Sandro Tonali is set to move to Tottenham in a deal worth up to £100m.

Should Newcastle‘s belated shift to a trading model come as a huge surprise, particularly after a 12th-placed finish in the Premier League last season?

Newcastle may theoretically be able to spend more within the rules, which have a higher threshold for clubs who are not competing in Europe.

But the club were never going to recklessly push against Uefa’s guardrails.

Newcastle made it clear this week they were “committed to full ongoing compliance” as part of a settlement with Uefa following a breach of its financial sustainability regulations.

Raising funds through the sales of Gordon and Tonali was always going to be crucial to significantly reinvest this summer.

It had been previously been suggested externally that Newcastle could stand to benefit from missing out on Europe.

This is because the Premier League’s separate squad-cost ratio (SCR) regulations allow clubs not competing in Uefa competitions to spend upwards of 85% of their football-related revenue and net profit/loss from player sales.

Uefa’s rules, by contrast, restrict clubs competing in Europe to a 70% spend.

However, senior figures at Newcastle warned that totting up huge losses in a single window and racking up an eye-watering squad cost without the revenue to support it would have a deeply damaging impact.

Uefa’s football earnings rule runs over a three-year period so, if Newcastle were to spend especially big this summer and go on to qualify for Europe, they would be in real risk of a breach as those accounts would still have to be submitted.

They would also have to somehow bring down their squad cost to fall in line with Uefa’s rules.

This is why trading was always going to be important in order to create headroom this summer, particularly without the riches of the Champions League.

Newcastle have simply had to become better sellers.

In 2024 senior figures inside the club flagged how Newcastle made only £12m profit on disposal in the previous three-year cycle.

The average of the Premier League’s six highest-earning clubs was £156m, while the other 13 sides brought in an average of more than £60m.

There has been a shift at Newcastle since then, but the club are now set to lose three key players in the space of less than a year.

Rebuilding while closing the revenue gap will be a real challenge for Newcastle, who are understood to have made positive progress in their bid to sign Hoffenheim’s 20-year-old Ivory Coast winger Bazoumana Toure.

The club certainly cannot afford a repeat of last summer’s bruising window when, aside from defender Malick Thiaw, they saw little immediate return from a £100m-plus net spend.

“Newcastle are very much on the wrong side of history,” football finance expert Kieran Maguire said.

“Chelsea didn’t have this under Roman Abramovich. Manchester City didn’t have this under Sheikh Mansour because there weren’t PSR and SCR restrictions.

“Those clubs could afford to lose as much as they wanted as long as the owners were happy with it, safe in the knowledge that if they bought a player and it didn’t work, they could get rid of the player or simply have that player sit out on very high wages.

“They could then afford to buy a replacement and hopefully that would work the second time around.”

When the Premier League voted in the new financial rules, Uefa was immediately concerned.

Europe’s other top leagues are aligned with or operate a method of financial regulation similar to Uefa’s 70% rule.

The Premier League’s squad-cost ratio, which kicked in on Wednesday, allows teams not in Europe to go up to 85% of revenue, and potentially as high as 115% with a negligible fine structure attached.

Uefa thinks this could cause inflation in the transfer market. English clubs with bigger budgets, through bumper TV rights deals, could spend even more money on transfers.

European clubs would need to spend more to keep their own players and acquire others.

This is about clubs in the middle of the table, like Everton, Fulham and Leeds United. They have the financial might to easily rival, say, AC Milan, Borussia Dortmund and Juventus for players.

There is another knock-on effect that Uefa has highlighted.

Think of it this way. A Premier League club qualifies for Europe in 2026-27 working to the Premier League’s 85% squad-cost ratio, or potentially higher.

The club must then pass Uefa’s 70% squad-cost ratio rule for 2027-28.

But Uefa does its assessment to the calendar year. For the 2027-28 campaign, that will be 2027.

So a club would need to pass the 70% limit when it might have been working to 85% for the first half of the year.

After spending money to qualify for Europe, they would then need to spend money to play in Europe.

In effect, Premier League clubs could be stuck in a doom loop of rotating fines as different teams make it into Europe.

Only those with vast commercial revenues, such as Manchester United and Tottenham, would have no problem dipping in and out, because they can operate to 70% regardless.

Crystal Palace made the numbers work last season, but Newcastle and Nottingham Forest, the two other clubs without European football in 2024-25, failed.

Bournemouth, with limited commercial revenue from a stadium which holds about 11,000, may have problems in 12 months’ time.

Brighton and Sunderland must also comply with Uefa’s regulations for the first time rather than the Premier League’s.

English clubs have had major issues as it is. Over the past two years Uefa has handed out fines totalling 158m euros (£136m), of which 99m euros (£85m) was suspended subject to future compliance.

Aston Villa and Chelsea account for the lion’s share of the Uefa fines, and Villa are finding it extremely hard to comply.

Despite being in Europe for the past three seasons – and one of those in the Champions League – Villa were found to have committed a “significant breach” in 2025. They were already under a compliance agreement from 2024.

Newcastle‘s problem has been two-fold, breaching Uefa’s football earnings rule – a three-year assessment similar to profit and sustainability – and the 70% limit too.

How can Newcastle hope to make up proper ground on the top clubs if they are going to operate to 70% of revenue when not in Europe?

It is sensible but it presents a competitive disadvantage to clubs who would look to spend to a higher percentage.

Not only will Newcastle be behind Arsenal, Liverpool and Manchester United, but other clubs could start challenging them for transfer targets by spending a greater portion of their income on their squads.

It is hard to see how Premier League clubs will not continue to be under scrutiny from Uefa.