The rules do have problems FFP should have been stricter in the first place.
The problem is that at some point big spending has to stop because a club can't sustain the costs naturally, this is why people were so annoyed about Real Madrid doing deals with the government to wash debt away.
What is wrong is someone coming in to a club and putting in hundreds of millions of pounds that a club could never raise as a business or could continue to afford. Because if an owner decides to leave the project, that club faces bankruptcy in the absence of a white Knight.
Now this is not common at the top tier but if you know your local non league or lower league clubs you can find several examples of chairmen putting in good money then withdrawing 5 years later, 2 years afterwards the club has gone bankrupt. FFP is not just about the top of the game, it's trying to prepare football clubs for the real world.
Man City and Chelsea have played the system and won, it's not right and though the law might be an ass, the bigger message is that if you do what you want and get questions afterwards, just take it to Cas with a good lawyer. Meanwhile everyone spends more than they should to keep up with the chasing pack. Sometimes nearly the entire club revenue, which is where things get problematic, what's more problematic? When clubs disguise sponsorship to lower the ratio, so the data is questionable and the club is not as secure as it seems.
This is not just about Spurs, it's the wellbeing of every club in the league, in most cases spending more on players and wages than they can justify. I am not saying that Levy has an excuse not to spend, more that the trend of overspending could create a league where a lot of clubs end up in dire straits. Also I don't want a competition which is prefaced on which club had the best spending power, that makes the whole exercise fairly pointless.
