Now made public the six Premier League clubs that voted on Friday to keep PSR | OneFootball

Newcastle United and the other 19 Premier League clubs met in London on Friday, with a series of votes to be made on potentially changing from PSR.

The idea(s) to introduce new financial rules to replace PSR.

In the end, three big votes were in front of the 20 Premier League clubs.

The idea of Anchoring was voted on first but received only seven votes in favour, with 12 against and one abstention.

The third and final vote was on SSR (Sustainability and Systemic Resilience) and all 20 Premier League clubs unanimously voted this through.

The big one though was SCR (Squad Cost Ratio), if this didn’t get voted through then the whole exercise had been basically a waste of time and PSR would still rule.

If seven Premier League clubs had voted against SCR replacing PSR, then it would have been blocked and PSR still in place.

In the event, six Premier League clubs voted against and 14 in favour.

The Athletic have now revealed which six voted against replacing PSR…

Those six Premier League clubs voting against SCR and to effectively keep PSR were Bournemouth, Brighton, Brentford, Crystal Palace, Fulham and Leeds.

Back in 2013 when PSR was introduced, the vote was passed by the smallest possible margin: with 13 votes for, six against and one abstention.

Back then in 2013, those voting against PSR were Aston Villa, Fulham, Manchester City, Southampton, Swansea and West Bromwich Albion, with Reading abstaining.

Down below I have picked out some of the analysis from The Athletic on each of these three votes on Friday, why the Premier League clubs may have voted as they did.

The vote on SCR (Squad Cost Ratio):

The Athletic analysis on that vote:

‘Friday’s SCR refuseniks were Bournemouth, Brentford, Brighton & Hove Albion, Crystal Palace, Fulham and Leeds United. Fulham clearly do not like being told how much money they can lose but you might be wondering why the rest of them were so opposed to a rule that should restrain wage-inflation and theoretically, at least, stop the sovereign-wealth-backed clubs from spending whatever it takes to diversify an economy/get a population healthy/rebrand a nation (delete as you see fit).

The vote on anchoring:

The Athletic analysis on that vote:

‘The very clubs most likely to benefit from a bit of anchoring in the Premier League were more worried about the prospect of the English Football League applying TBA in the Championship, therefore neutering the impact of their parachute payments. Never, ever underestimate the influence of naked self-interest when it comes to decisions about what is best for football.

The upshot of all those concerns about TBA was the biggest defeat a Premier League initiative has ever received at a shareholders’ meeting: seven for, 12 against, with one abstention.

The latter was Burnley. Arsenal, Aston Villa, Everton, Liverpool and Sunderland were among those who backed the idea, with Arsenal’s vote in favour raising a few eyebrows around the room, as they have spent the last week or so hinting that they would vote against it.’

The vote on SSR: