As has been discussed ad nauseam, FFP is UEFA's and pertains to continental footy tournaments, and Profit & Sustainability is the EPL's, pertaining only to the league (I was guilty of calling them both FFP for a long time until corrected & educated on the topic).
Anyway, the premise of both is the same, other than where they apply and what the potential penalties could be. Currently, FFP has far more consequence than P&S does, including competition bans for 1+ years (though I think the City appeal win will shake this up but that's just my opinion). At their core, they essentially boil down to not overspending, which is based entirely on the club's spending vs its revenue. What it doesn't take into account is how rich the owner(s) of the club are. In the most extreme example, Jeff Bezos could buy Burnley and it wouldn't matter. All his riches would be ignored because Burnley simply doesn't generate enough revenue.
Unless I'm mistaken, the only 'in writing' penalty for breaching the EPL's P&S rules are hefty fines. I've read that they've been considering transfer bans, points reductions, etc., but I can't find a single source that proves these exist.
Assuming they don't, what are youse thoughts around Everton simply accepting the penalties for 1 year, and spending what needs to be spent to fix this team? Between Moshiri (and really, Usmanov), the team has considerable financial strength and could easily cover any fines. Even if points reductions and/or transfer bans came into play, neither would matter IMO because 1) we'd be nowhere near relegation, and 2) could easily survive a window with no transfers.
I know there are supporters on both sides of the debate, so curious what the forum thinks? It's been proven to work before (Milan, most famously), and I'm in the "f*ck it" camp myself, but let's hear it.