StrandedrabidbeeWestYorksRoyal Tbh, the change that is desperately needed, which most fans probably agree with, would be bitterly opposed by the industry. We should have owners making forecasts and depositing capital to cover expected losses, with an allowance for uncertainty so that one key injury doesn't tip a club over the edge (see Everton's argument about player Y; don't sail so close to the wind). Some owners would agree, but definitely not the majority needed to pass it.
What is needed is a way to force clubs to live within their means (and FFP is an imperfect step in this direction), so that they should be able to manage ordinary fluctuations in revenue (with perhaps some kind of safety net to preserve clubs that unexpectedly fall into hardship whilst they work their way back out of it).
It would mean clubs not relying heavily on rich owners pumping in huge amounts of cash (thus putting pressure on everybody else to compete at that level of expenditure), not mortgaging anticipated future revenues to pay for today's excesses, not offering unsustainable contracts, and (hopefully) investing in training facilities to produce a revenue stream.
But it also requires clubs to accept that they can't just take a perceived (if by no means guaranteed) shortcut to shoot up the leagues by pumping money. Ideally, you'd like to see the money within the game being shared better across all the levels, to ensure the strength of the entire league, rather than being mostly sequestered in the hands of a few rich clubs (and extracted by shareholders).
Which is why we can't just rely on clubs to do this.
There needs to be a mechanism that allows owners to pump in money but not be allowed to load the club with debt - if a new owner wants to give a club say 100m, they should be able to - what they shouldn't be able to do is load that on as debt. Beyond that the wages to turnover rules seen in L1 and L2 should be mandatory at all levels, with a top level of 75% - so if you want to pay more, the club needs to earn more - either by sales or again an owner happy to pump in money they will never see again.
Of course, the problem with selling players is that less and less clubs actually want to or can afford to pay a fee, so the market for selling is getting smaller and smaller.
It's not just debt though, it's cashflow forecasts and manageable wages. You can have a great owner who is putting in finance, but if their circumstances change the club needs to be self sufficient. If you look back to SJM, he lost a lot of wealth in the financial crash but the club could handle it when he could no longer support us. We had to sell our best talent which is ultimately why the team promoted in 2012 couldn't compete like in 2006. But we were sustainable.
Compare that to when AZ went AWOL, he had tied us into contracts on Pogrebnyak, Guthrie, Drenthe and Williams which crippled us. And Dai has done the same.
I get the overall point of equity instead of debt, but having low debt today isn't enough if you're locked into expensive 4 year contracts.