Fraud isn’t infrastructure though. It literally can’t be fraud because it’s not illegal to rent a stadium that the club didn’t build.
it’s just not against the rules. That would mean Qatar could never build another building again while owning United without the club getting ffp over it.
It simply doesn’t make sense.
It's against the rules to not list the rental as an expense. It's against the rules to pay significantly less than market value for it. And that expense counts towards FFP.
And I literally just said that they can cover builds with equity injection.
Eg.
a) Man Utd builds New Trafford. It costs 2bn. The owners inject 2Bn equity into the club. - This is allowed and does not impact FS.*
b) Man Utd builds New Trafford. It costs 2bn. The owners borrow to do this. - This now impacts FS. (Aka Spurs stadium)**
c) Man Utd builds New Trafford. It costs 2bn. The owners provide an interest free loan over 50 (or 500) years. This impacts FS, but obviously in a much lesser way.
*The current reading of the article states that you'd need to do this kinda via c), but it's probably just clumsily worded. (As in dripfeed it over x years to pay the interest free loan)
** It won't impact spurs as they built under old FFP rules