I absolutely sympathise with many of your points, because, as we both know, FFP isn't really doing the job that UEFA claim.
I differ from you in that I think the battle to defeat it will be more complex.
Formula One has spending limits. So there's a precedent for sport putting spending limits on teams. What good it's actually done Formula One is another matter!.... but other sports have had spending restrictions applied... either in terms of how much you can spend on the development of the team, or on how much you can spend on salaries (as a combined unit).
We also have to deal with the slightly banal argument that UEFA could put forwards... 'we aren't FORCING you to take part in our competition', We are, in theory, able to go and form some other competition, or a breakaway league. It's not a very practical option, but they can certainly make that argument. They aren't forcing any club to do anything.
We can demonstrate all the great things we've done - beautiful stadium, amazing training facilities, community involvement etc, and UEFA can say 'that's great, that's precisely how we want to steer investment, back into facilities and opportunities'. Cheeky of them, but no doubt they've got cheek enough to say it.
UEFA are never going to mention any specific club in their general chat about FFP, after all, even if it was specifically targeting certain clubs, they can't admit that!... they are always going to use general terms.
They'll also cheekily say 'since their investment, City have won 4 trophies and partaken in CL almost every year, and were it not for FFP, there's a very real danger they'd have become too dominant'. I KNOW it's a bloody cheek, but it's what they'll say. They'll also say, despite FFP, we have managed to do that, thus proving success is still possible, even with restrictions!
In our favour, we can demonstrate that the consumer has not seen any significant benefit. TV subscription prices have not fallen, not have ticket prices or merchandise costs'. in UEFA's favour they'll say that football's now available through even more channel, more accessible across the world, with revenues rising and more fans watching, and *cough* no teams have dominated.
They'll also say that UEFA didn't act arbitrarily, but acted on behalf of the industry who asked for regulation. The clubs themselves wanted it. Of course, we all know that was a limited subset of clubs, most of whom could be accused of merely protecting themselves.
They'll probably say that it's too soon to judge the effects of FFP yet - which could be a great point for us to use against them.... what studies did they carry out prior to developing the rules? what other measures did they consider (if any)? Why were they ruled out? etc. I think there's a very good argument to say they could have introduced far less stringent controls first, and adjust those accordingly over a period of time, not jump right in with pretty heavy restrictions.
They've also paid absolutely no heed to debt levels (I agree with you on that entirely). Debt's not necessarily bad, but debt, is essentially a risk, and large debt is a large risk. The staggering avoidance of tackling that won't look good in court.
I don't know if we're getting anywhere discussing these aspects forever. We'll say one thing, UEFA will say another until the cows come home, or someone puts a stop to them.
