I cannot agree with much of what you say here. No-on is suggesting, or has ever suggested that Ipswich Town should build a 150000 capacity Super stadium but clubs have decided to leave stadia which they consider outdated to move to more modern stadia which provide a much better facilities for fans and greater revenues for the club. Our rag neighbours need desperately either to improve OT or to move elsewhere. The cost is significantly greater than 50% of annual turnover, whether the club was Southampton, Leicester or Everton, Spurs and the rags at the other end of the spectrum. Under FFP investment on such projects can be unlimited subject to meeting the interest payments. Clubs seem to have coped well enough with this: Southampton and Brighton have had to be relatively inactive in the transfer market for a time and Spurs fans have their grievances, real or imagined, but the new stadia are a real asset.
What you propose seems to me to act as a deterrent because it takes a very cynical view of football ownership. It is true that we believe that there is a cartel of clubs determined to take money out of the game rather than to invest in it. It is true that clubs such as Stockport have suffered at the hands of unscrupulous owners, but the majority of clubs are owned and run by those trying to do their best for their club in a hostile environment. To insist they take all the risk and pay all the bill is unreasonable and based on a view of owners as fraudsters. Loans and debt are an accepted way of raising capital and spreading the cost.
It is also fair to point out that ownership of football clubs is becoming increasingly complex. Spurs were owned by a tax exile and I believe others are, Liverpool by an American "sports group"/ hedge fund and so on. Demanding guarantees and getting repayment should things go wrong is not something the football authorities would relish.
