I don't think FFP is about stopping investment. I think its primary aim is to control wages which is footballs biggest problem.
If Tony wanted to spend £150 million on another stadium and training ground then there is nothing to stop him. If he wanted to spend £150 million on transfers and wages over the next few seasons, he would be braking FFP rules.
I think its a good thing. Saying that a few financial experts seem to have reservations about the motives and set up of FFP, and I have to bow down to their superior understanding and am willing to believe that maybe it is not all that it seems and there could be a better way.
I used "investment" tongue in cheek. In my view there is a very good case that can be made to allow clubs to be funded by wealthy investors should they so chose and as long as it's done with good governence, such as ensuring that any commitments taken on such as players contracts are covered by normal revenues (including reduced revenues if relegated) plus a combination of guarantees and even cash deposits. It might not be an attractive proposition for said "investors" but it would stop the speculative stuff that has got many in trouble.
I'm more than happy to be corrected on this, but I can't see anything in FFP that prevents a club from racking up debt and going bust, they just need to do it differently