I'm as anti ENIC as anyone on here but my understanding of the £400m leeway is that it only exists in theory.
I.e. we'd need to loan that money from somewhere and would then owe it to someone. The debt burden of that loan won't break FFP rules, but we'd still be £400m in debt.
Mafia clubs like Chelsea and City circumvent this issue by loaning the money to themselves from themselves via various shell companies and dodgy sponsorship deals so that they end up not owing anyone anything and also not breaking FFP. That's one option.
The other option is to enjoy so much on field success that natural (and legal) revenue streams begin to pay off chunks of that debt. We tried this model and failed. Liverpool tried and succeeded.
The benefit of the second option is that success is earned and revenue is above board. The major flaw in it is how unlikely it is to work over the long term. I.e. for Pool to continue doing what they've done well for the past 2-3 years and still compete with the mafia clubs, they'll need to win the PL or CL more or less every season until the Mansours and Abramovich die. The chances of that happening are very slim.
So the only real way to make Option 2 sustainable is to create income flows that are not dependent on endless footballing success. Property, tourism, housing, commerce etc. are just a few areas that ENIC have invested in over the years. These are theoretically long-term revenues that allow for a club to compete financially without having to win a major trophy every single season.
So I get the logic of how ENIC operate and have often said that Levy is a business genius. But as a sportsman? Complete buffoon. Poor recruitment, far too many poor managerial choices, a series of decisions that tarnished the club's image, thinking he had the nous to build a business empire and take care of footballing matters from 2018 to the hiring of Paratici etc.
The list is a long and pretty damning one. I've often said if he left footballing matters to people who understand the game, we'd be in a much better place.
The way i see it (provided the article on the FFP is correct), the FFP thing is you cannot spend more than you can make. So provided the 400m FFP is true, it means you had that money there.
However, the 400m revenue, rather than being spent on funding new players has been spent on things like the stadium (in the earlier years), or a new ground or a some new land. this is why you still have 400m FFP (yes 400m is hypothetical, who knows what the real number is) as this sort of spending does not count towards FFP but don't actually have the 400m cash.
Billy is correct from what i can tell
