How does it work when a purchased player is only paid for in chunks though?
I think for complicity, there is an agreed industry standard of how the monies have to be accounted for. I know a couple of clubs have tried creative things and been told no. It makes a bit of a mockery of those who defend FFP really, as there are lots of areas where it makes little sense.
On the specific point you make, without being an accounting or lawyer, all I could say is that you dont always have to have the whole value of X for it to show. Theres normally a "recievables" section for payments due,.but it wouldnt go under "cash and equivalents". Different subsections but under the same section "assets".
The whole value would be added as well, and FFP makes bo distinction or penalty on the potential you may not be paid. You have a contract, that states you will be paid Y, you can count Y.
In their defence, the football preferred creditors rule makes it quite likely all payments will be made.
But yea. FFP is a badly run system, even from an accounting perspective. It doesnt make much sense.
Designed by a bunch fools who think they are really clever. Your thinking mans Kopite as it were, the sort who bang on about "passing lanes" whole sipping a skinny latte.