I've seen one comment on another forum that sums up FFP and how its unfit for purpose on the premise that: "a guy that makes £100k a year but owes half a million is better off than someone who makes £50k a year with no debt"Jerry St Clair wrote: ↑16 Dec 2023, 08:47I disagree Si.Si Robin wrote: ↑07 Dec 2023, 08:32
With all due respect, I know getting at Vince is free reign on here and I'm not against that, but, I think the one thing you can't accuse him of is being an unfit and improper owner. He has never seen the club into any financial issues, as far as I'm aware never been late with pay to staff, etc...
What he's done is financially dope the club above their "station" and if he does go their financial sustainability might be in issue - but until he does then he's been nothing but a good thing for FGR in terms of where they are as a club (forget the moralistic issues that you may or may not agree with)
'Financial doping' is precisely what poor owners do. It's all fine.......until it isn't.
If a football club is completely reliant on the benevolence of one person, then they are incredibly fragile. It isn't completely the owners' fault. The EFL/FA rules are culpable here in allowing these situations to develop.
But unless the owner has a sustainability plan, which is in their gift, then I would argue they are, at least partially, culpable in putting the future of their clubs at risk.
so until the former is targeted than the later then clubs will still push the boundaries.