It was never right in the first place and only reason it was brought in was to stop City. Did it stop the likes of Bolton and Bury going into administration? Did it stop Barcelona going into financial oblivion, no it didn’t. They will dream up something next to go after us with yet.
The problem with FFP is that it’s focus is entirely on profits and losses and says nothing about debts or sustainability.
To move from the situation of a mid table team to a challenger for honours requires very large investment in the playing squad. This will always mean short term losses until the investment starts to bring results.
City were faced with this issue after the takeover. Newcastle will no doubt experience much the same. FFP as constituted is simply a means of preventing competition. For years the old big four in English football dominated by scooping up the Championd league places each year and using the cash generated to outspend anyone else.
FFP was there to stop other teams from challenging the big four. It also had the effect of protecting the other teams from competition from the Championship. In the 1960s through to the 1980s, teams such as Ipswich, City, and Forest were promoted and quickly won League titles. Not any more.
Teams being promoted often are faced with the choice of not spending a lot and sinking back down immediately (Norwich, Fulham, Watford) or else overspending to stay up and then sinking even further as a consequence (Bradford City, Hull, etc.).
The operation of FFP enables owners to take over clubs (effectively for nothing) by loading the purchase price on to debts. This happened at United and since then at Burnley and other teams.
Meanwhile, City have been vilified for using a sustainable business model and reinvesting profits back into the playing squad rather than paying the owners large sums.
