I've represented Newcastle United and know PSR truth after being involved in 'so many cases'

The Premier League's financial rules have ended up holding 'certain clubs back' - even if that was not their 'positive intention'.

That is according to Nick De Marco, who previously acted for Newcastle United in the Magpies' takeover dispute, and later represented Leicester City and Nottingham Forest when these clubs were hit with PSR charges by the Premier League.

Premier League clubs have agreed to trial new squad cost controls and top to bottom anchoring in shadow this season, but top-flight sides remain restricted to losses of £105m over a rolling three-year period. This figure was set more than a decade ago and has not risen in line with inflation, which has left upwardly mobile clubs like Newcastle at a disadvantage compared to the established order, who have far superior revenues.

READ MORE:Newcastle United announce mini upgrade outside St James' Park in PSR boost

READ MORE:Newcastle United star is 'best in the Premier League' in his position

De Marco has previously highlighted 'strange inconsistencies' in the rules and the barrister is certainly well-placed to give his take after 'being involved in so many PSR/FFP cases' since the regulations were first introduced in 2013.

"I have never gone so far as to argue that no financial restraint rules are necessary nor that the positive intention of the current rules is to hold certain clubs back," he wrote. "But that has been their effect.

"Despite what some have claimed, the evidence does not suggest they have advanced either financial sustainability or competitive balance - the contrary could more easily be made out."

De Marco was part of the legal team who succeeded in helping Leicester City avoid a points deduction for an alleged PSR breach a couple of months ago, when the Premier League's barrister, Jane Mulcahy KC, even admitted that the rules were 'not perfectly drafted'. An independent commission accepted the regulations were put together in a manner that was 'unsatisfactory, anomalous or exposed a gap'.