What are the negative aspects of creating fake security footprints?

It's a lot of work. Not only that, but it's a lot of work that your (legitimate) users will never see or benefit from. Most people would be willing to trade off the nebulous risk of deterring a small subset of hackers (realize that APT hackers, in particular, wouldn't be dissuaded and might even find an extra way into your system if you do something wrong setting up your fake services) in exchange for developing real features that will attract real (paying) customers.

If you've convinced yourself that you're a real target, sure, set up some honeypots (at least then you can invest in measuring how many attempts are being made on your "misdirection servers"). Security is already expensive, and you're talking about adding extra cost, so make sure it's worth it.

Note: I like honeypots a lot but to answer your question some negative aspects include:

You are not reducing your workload.

You are increasing the amount of signals you have to process.

You are increasing your operating costs.

You are taking time away from other security activities which may otherwise help protect actual data & services.

You may be increasing risks to yourself and others by giving the bad actors another machine to launch attacks from, even if they are not aimed at yourself.

You are increasing the work asymmetry against yourself and in the favor of the attacker in an effort to "hopefully" increase the attackers work at a future point in time. This may or may not ever pay off.

Again those are just some potential answers to your question. I think there is an appropriate time for a mature security program to do this but all of the other more important tasks would need to be in place first. Too often I see people focus on what is sexy rather than what is needed so that would be my biggest concern when prioritizing this. These can be very useful if implemented wisely -and- you can make it so that it's cost-effective.