Eddie Howe's theory that Premier League rivals placed a "Newcastle tax" on transfer deals appeared to be glaringly obvious in the aftermath of Manchester City's legal "win" over the top-flight.
It took just five days after the takeover went through on October 7 for a clutch of Premier League sides to round up on the Saudi-led Magpies and appeal for a rule change that would eventually halt the club's progress. Staveley said then: "I was shocked that we could buy a club, pay a full price and then rules just change.
"I think that's what p****d me off, because we had so little revenue anyway, that if you're just going to ban everything... We were 20th, we had nothing. I was angry then, yes."
Back then 11 clubs - according to documents brought into the public domain - were against the idea of Newcastle taking over English football. During City's legal fight on Associated Party Transactions (APTs), it emerged that Liverpool, Man United, Brentford, Arsenal, West Ham, Bournemouth, Fulham and Wolves all stood up for the Premier League during the intense case.
With both City and the Premier League claiming victory, the salient points to emerge were that the rules were deemed "unlawful" by a panel because they did not take into consideration interest-free loans from shareholders to clubs and that the champions could now net more lucrative deals and even get damages from the top-flight, that could possibly apply to Newcastle too.
Newcastle fans know all about huge loans from an owner being pumped into the coffers given Mike Ashley claimed he was keeping the Magpies afloat by doing exactly that for long parts of his painful tenure. Given Arsenal have £200m of loans from shareholders being injected into their kitty, it now leaves the Premier League in a sticky position.
And so an emergency meeting for all 20 clubs has been called to discuss what rules must be changed. Only then will the full extent of what is possible for Newcastle, Man City and others be known.
For other rivals what isn't possible could soon become clear and that's where there could be more noise by the same voices who opposed Newcastle's spending power to begin with. If Newcastle can show they were denied bumper deals from partnerships close to their Saudi owners, damages could be winging their way to St James' Park at some point.
For the clubs needing loans from shareholders that could make life difficult because soon those interest free loans may have to be included in PSR calculations and push them close to breaching the rules or even facing points deductions.
That won't affect Newcastle United because the club - unlike the Ashley era and other rivals - don't owe majority owners PIF or anyone else a penny.
But change is afoot, one Premier League chairman, unnamed, has been quoted in The Times saying: "There is some relief that the associated party rules system will continue but also uncertainty over how they will look because clearly there are going to have to be changes.
"What all the clubs will be looking to see is if clubs will be allowed to claim higher value sponsorship deals from related parties than they were previously — this certainly looks a serious risk."
A quick glance at PIF's investment portfolio shows a list including Arab Bank, Uber and Riyadh Air to name just a trio of potential link ups. For all the outrage and two barren transfer windows in 2024, the future could look brighter.
United's last set of accounts showed revenue profits of £200m but it felt like a drop in the ocean compared to Man City's £700m. That could well change with the addition of some serious sponsorship cash coming in.
Newcastle's own takeover lawyer Nick De Marco stated he could not say much about the ruling, but posted on X: "All that I can say is we are living in the most exciting time for sports law. I have never myself been one to celebrate the greater commercialisation and therefore legalisation of sport and its regulation, but it is a real fact of life and economic activity, such that this tendency for greater scrutiny of sports regulation is inevitable."
Howe was dismissed by some observers for suggesting that clubs crank up prices when they see Newcastle emerging over the hill to do a deal for their players. Crystal Palace were certainly one club who tried to hold out for more on Marc Guehi in the summer.
The Toon head coach said in September to Chronicle Live: "I think the 'Newcastle tax" was definitely there for us in our first year. After a big takeover, we were big news and we came in for a player and the price doubled.
"I don't think that's there any more because people know the reality of our situation and know we are not changing the market or what we are doing, we are in line in the market with everyone else. We have definitely walked away from deals early on where we thought there was a Newcastle tax."
Suddenly the dynamics could change again and clubs will be affected by potential rules changes in different ways. They may not be so picky on some deals but by the same token if there is more to spend, Newcastle may also be in a position to nudge up the prices if they are under less scrutiny.
It is a complicated mess that the Premier League now have to sort out - and quickly!
