‘With certain caveats’ - Why Man City & Co should be allowed to ‘spend what they want’ as FFP regulations prevent billionaire owners from splashing the cash

That question is dominating discussions once again, with City being stung with well over 100 charges for alleged breaches of FFP regulations. They could be hit with the most serious of punishments - ranging from top-flight expulsion to long-term transfer embargoes.

Part of the problem there is that the Blues’ board, led by Sheikh Mansour, have been eager to maximise spending power. When chasing down the grandest of prizes at home and abroad, there is a need to speculate in order to accumulate.

City have embarked on lavish recruitment drives, but are far from being the only ones to indulge in that department. Many more would like to see shackles shaken, with Profit and Sustainability Rules (PSR) holding the likes of Newcastle and Aston Villa back.

Rich owners are now par for the course in Premier League circles, as that division has become a billionaire’s playground, so inevitable questions are being asked of why restrictive protocols remain in place.

Quizzed on whether teams should be able to dictate their own budgets, as long as debts are not loaded onto the club, former City defender Mills - who was speaking on behalf of Gambling.com, the guide to the best online casinos - told GOAL: “Yes, with certain caveats.

“The whole point of Financial Fair Play is that clubs do not go bust. Because obviously, especially in this country, the club is a community. It's about the fans. It's much, much bigger than football. It's about the whole thing.

“If a football club goes bust, it affects the whole town, the city, whatever it might be. We have to protect that as much as anything. So Financial Fair Play, whatever you want to call it, PSR, is there to stop clubs going bust.

“It's a very, very simple solution to this. And I've said this many, many times. If you've got billionaire owners, let them spend whatever they want to spend. Why not? Well, on the caveat that those contracts they sign are put into an escrow account. So those contracts are protected.

“Let's say I take over a club tomorrow and every contract is worth 900 million for the next however long it might be. That's the total value of those players' contracts. I say, ‘there you go, there's 900 million pounds into an account that cannot be touched’. There's effectively a safeguard. If I walk away tomorrow, it's my bond and I lose my 900 million quid.

“If I sign a new player, I have to keep topping it up. And obviously each year it is revised, you're playing around with that number. So you're putting a bond in. If I walk away tomorrow, the club's protected. Those contracts will eventually run down, but the club doesn't lose out. The club can sell players and stuff in the meantime if they want and get money back in. But that club never has to worry about, we cannot pay those players' wages.

“For example, Luton Town got promoted and let's say the Saudi Investment Fund were Luton fans. You can't compete. We've seen that in Newcastle. Why, if it's your money, can't you spend as much as you want? As long as the club's protected.

“People say, ‘oh, it's a lot of money’. Well, you have a choice. If you buy a football club and you have to put a billion pounds in a bond, so be it. If not, run your football club better and put 500 million in a bond.

“You start to see that in the EFL. Obviously teams that drop out of the Championship have to prove that they can pay their wages for the following season and admit their losses. It's kind of a similar thing, just obviously on a bigger scale with bigger numbers.

“Can Chelsea afford to do that? Can the Glazers afford to do that? Yes, of course they can. And okay, they might borrow it from a bank, whatever they might do, but you can protect those football clubs.

“I'd be all for letting them spend what they want. As long as it's not borrowed money, as long as it's not against anything else, it's actual cash that they're investing, real capital, why not? As long as it's not loans that have to be paid back or X, Y, Z. If you're going, ‘here's my bag of cash, boom, there it is’, I'd let them spend whatever they want.”

Before any tweaks are made to Premier League rule books, City are waiting to discover what the immediate future has in store for them. They may have enjoyed domestic dominance, while capturing a Champions League crown, but did they achieve that by indulging in a form of ‘cheating’?

The Blues continue to argue their case, with appeals being lodged, and maintain that they have done nothing wrong. It may be that a protracted saga, which has dragged on for well over three years, leads to sweeping change that breaks open banks across the United Kingdom.