Good post and solid reasoning. I actually thought FFP in it's original format to stop debt was a good idea and was actually needed to stop some clubs ruining themselves. The minute it was changed by Platini (no doubt under severe pressure from the usual culprits) to a turnover based scheme it was stitch up. Sooner or later City, PSG or someone else was going to take it on and bring it down. As we know, revenue / turnover is not profit and profit is not cash. Which is why a lot of profitable businesses fold and go to the wall. Whilst a certain level of debt can be a good thing which allows businesses to borrow and then invest to grow, FFP simply chose to ignore this and debt was allowed on an unlimited basis. A framework which was a turnover based system maybe would have been acceptable, if it also limited the amount of debt a club could carry as well. Hence being a robust framework to allow spending based on revenue growth from a more solid financial position. However, I guess the thinking was that the well established gravy train would never dry up and to be fair, at the time why should it? I know hindsight is precise, but what UEFA should have done is allowed City to come into the club, then pull up the drawbridge instead of trying to pull it up just as we had reached the other side. Whilst they would have had what they thought as an interloper at their party, the party would have continued. But greed and I would also think jealousy and fear (as I have said before) stopped any rational, long term thinking. They also decided to take on an organisation that literally had unlimited funds if it chose to use them. I did hear that City reluctantly agreed with UEFA to take the first hit on FFP in 2014 (I think) on the understanding that it would be done and dusted and everyone could just move on. But UEFA reneaged on that agreement and came back for a second bite of the cherry. At that stage City told them they would go all the way legally and spend as much money as it needed on legal services to do so and City would dig in for a 5 year legal battle with a view to bringing down FFP completely. Again, due to either arrogance or incompetance or probaly both they still decided to pursue it. As I said previously, the whole case by UEFA was built on the leaked emails by Der Spiegal. They were completely discredited and a few of them had actually been cut & pasted to form other entirely fictitious emails. But the UEFA legal Beagles didn't even check them beforehand. Apparently the City top brass started celebrating after the first days hearing as they knew it was a done deal. What on earth they are going to come up with next only god knows. But what we do know is that it will be framed to protect the establishment clubs at the expense of any other clubs. History usually repeats if its allowed, and in another 10 years or so we will back to where we are again today.
Yes I mean I always felt FFP ended up doing neither thing. It wasn't strong enough to actually cause greater fairness in the game, nor was it weak enough to allow for social mobility. Not only did it get caught in a half way house, it got caught in a half way house that was confusing, ran contrary to the basic principles of European law and was increasingly seen as favouring a section of clubs narrow interests. I mean they honestly couldn't have come up with a worse set of rules had they tried. To have managed to achieve all of the above, is remarkable. Normally you sacrfice social mobility, or greater fairness, they managed to sacrifice both.
I remember saying in the lead up to the court case, they just need to back down. The usual gloating suspects (essentially Kopites) with their inane and clueless understanding of law and precadent seemed to place the very high emphasis on what was essentially UEFA's kangaroo court. It was obvious as soon as it was heard in an impartial court, anyone with any legal background would just throw it out. The problem is, UEFA is full of yes men, who just confirm the group think.
City were waiting for that moment too. At no point did City ever look in any way rattled. And why would they? They knew they were compliant with European law. Even if UEFA would have fluked it at the CAS they'd have escalated it to the enxt level and won.
UEFA to me were like a poker player, trying to bluff a hand, against an opponent who knew they had the nut hand. City were waiting and catching them. The sensible play was never to recklessly gamble the entire FFP reputation in such away, but as you say, to bring City into the fold. The problem is, the propaganda just got too much. Some people genuinely started to believe notions that spending money is akin to "financial doping" or that suits in ivory towers can dictate market value as a point of fact, better than what an actual market can dictate it's own value. They started getting wound up, and for a lot of the teams opposing City, they didn't want to lose face.
I think UEFA are learning slowly that wasa bad move. Those same clubs have thanked them by trying to set up a rival comp. Thats the thanks they have got for risking their reputation and essentially having their backsides handed to them in a humiliating way.
As for the final point, I never got the issue with debt. Companies, particularly growth companies regularly run on debt in the early phases. Amazon, Apple, Tesla etc all ran on debt before they became successful. Imagine if some watchdog would have tried to shut Amazon down in 2008 or whatever before they hit the big time, and thought he knew better than Jeff Bezos about how to grow a company because they turnover figure shouldn't allow that much borrowing. It would just never happen. And it should never be allowed to happen. You can't grow and innovate if you're unwilling to speculate and gamble a bit.
A perfectly normal set of behaviours in the business world have been bordwer criminalised by football's authorities, by a bunch of bureacrat hacks who think they know more about business than people who have made tens of billions in business. It's utterly tragic.