1: Manchester City, Chelsea, PSG, Real, Barcelona have all incurred debts to cover losses, and they deliver trophies.
2: TB initially lent the Albion money to cover trading losses, which he wouldn't be able to do under your half baked scheme.
Because they told him the same as we told Elliott Bennett. We will give you a good pay rise for 4-5 months then allow you to sign for another club and give you a bigger slice of the transfer fee.
It didn't help that Oscar Garcia couldn't be found on the day of the transfer and Grabban didn't...
All businesses have debts. Why are you trying to make football clubs different?
Under your plan the Albion would be playing non-league at best. You may want that. I don't.
1: Current rules allow losses so doesn't particularly reduce the likelihood of financial failure. It's an irrelevance anyway as cash flow is more important than profit. The clubs with the greatest debts ( Chelsea, City, PSG) are the ones least likely to go bust.
2: Player wages are continuing...
It's simpler than that. Clubs can't spend more than 60%/70% of revenue in wages (percentage depends on the division).
They have to submit monthly accounts to the league.
Problem is with 'proper' FFP Manchester United would have won the league for each of the last 15 seasons. Only Arsenal have come close to matching them financially, and that was a good while ago. Chelsea, City and perhaps Blackburn too managed to compete with United due to owner investment...
If no club is going to go bust, is there a problem? You won't find the fans of Chelsea or City complaining about rich owners.I know some
of ours whine about TB, but they're either dumb or closet anti-Semitic.