I do think FFP does more good than bad, it isn't perfect.
Like I said: that's fair enough Tom and I know your motives are pure. I'm just not sure everyone else has the same reasons for wanting FFP.
Let's take Liverpool out of the equation and look instead at Arsenal; a huge advocate of the 'virtues' of FFP and the 'shining example' of how to run a business...
Arsenal were, for as long as I can remember (and before), always a wealthy club; always able to 'compete'; always able to sign and pay for the best and always winners. Yet, in all that time, I don't recall them ever saying "whoa, hold on here, this isn't fair... we can sign and pay the best, whilst Burnley can't."
Then, two things happen... a noisy, wealthy, Russian neighbour moves in across the street and Kronke starts his rise to prominence.
All of a sudden Wenger starts to mewl: "It's not fair... We can't compete... How's it fair when we can't compete and pay what the Russian can?" Well the truth is; they could compete but that would have meant Kronke (a very wealthy man) and others spending his/their own money - just like the pesky Russian.
The fact is; he (and the other shareholders ) didn't want to compete. They were getting their coin [dividends] and watching their stock grow without 'competing', thanks to a good but compliant coach/manager.
[Striking similarities between Arsenal and Man U with their own noisy Arab neighbours but that's for again maybe].
Arsenal never gave a F**k about level playing fields or inequality until they were the poor relations. Now they're buying into FFP lock, stock and both barrels. A system which is every bit unfair. Why?
Well, without spending a penny of their own money, Arsenal's shareholders will be at the top of the pile... and my guess is that, just like all them years ago, Arsenal will not be pointing out how unfair the inequality is.
So whilst I know your motives are pure Tom, I also know that the clubs who are shouting the loudest are less altruistic. For them it's more about money than concern about their 'fellow man'. (IMO, of course).