It’s hit the nail right on the head with that one line… it’s become punishable for owners to invest in their business.

Absolutely ok for the Glazers to milk the biggest (commercially) club in the land, but for our owners to put something back in to the game is a big no go!!!

Rules are just getting changed as soon as a new ‘threat’ comes along.

It’s not about preserving the clubs as a ‘community asset’ any longer… it’s all about preserving the status of the ‘big 6’!

Ok, clubs as community assets need to be protected, so do that… allow a club to spend what it earns, a limited overspend as FFP does already, or not a penny more if they really want to.

But don’t stop any owner from pumping money in to it if they want to.

As long as club spend, ‘normal’ outgoings including upkeep, wages and transfer fees etc fall within the earnings of the club… that should be a perfectly acceptable way of controlling debt.

But, if the owners want to invest further in their business, let them - but ensure that any debt accrued though player transfers is attributed to the owners / holding company rather than the club itself.

That way if an owner gets bored of propping up their club and pulls the plug… it can support itself without the owner input as usual running costs fall within the clubs financial limitations.

Essentially FFP criteria could be applied the same just with more on the general running costs of clubs and player wages, rather than transfers.

When they’re playing with their own money, I’m sure wiser decisions would be made by the owners 😂