FFP - 21 Man Squad Restriction & Homegrown Quota

[aguero93:20]

Look at this discussion: <a class="postlink" href="https://twitter.com/sportingintel/status/469139896276647936" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">https://twitter.com/sportingintel/statu ... 6276647936</a>

UEFA actually told journalists 8 (4+4) yet City are working on the assumption of 5 so have been told otherwise.

UEFA are a joke of an organisation.

Didn't billy get told the same thing by the head of media who then back-tracked though?

 

[I'm no cynic but...]

After reading these last few pages, I'm still confused.com. I won't be trusting anyone's views until UEFA and City reach an unambiguous agreement and our squad is named and accepted.

 

[pavelsrnicek]

After reading these last few pages, I'm still confused.com. I won't be trusting anyone's views until UEFA and City reach an unambiguous agreement and our squad is named and accepted.

Somebody somewhere has a written agreement between City and UEFA and that will set out the terms of settlement. Unless you have read it you won't know what's in it.

People who have read it:
Decision makers at City and their advisors.
Decision makers at UEFA and their advisors.

People who haven't read it:
Everyone else (including journalists and from the sound of things the press officers at UEFA).

 

[Rammyblues]

If true, 16 +4 +1, easy peasy lemon squeezy.

:-)

 

[Centurions]

If true, 16 +4 +1, easy peasy lemon squeezy.

:-)

And 16+1+4 would be even easier ;)

 

[Vic]

After reading these last few pages, I'm still confused.com. I won't be trusting anyone's views until UEFA and City reach an unambiguous agreement and our squad is named and accepted.

Somebody somewhere has a written agreement between City and UEFA and that will set out the terms of settlement. Unless you have read it you won't know what's in it.

People who have read it:
Decision makers at City and their advisors.
Decision makers at UEFA and their advisors.

People who haven't read it:
Everyone else (including journalists and from the sound of things the press officers at UEFA).

Ah, but what if the written agreement just said, as reported, that City's squad is limited to 21 players, but did not set out anything more specific? UEFA incompetence perhaps, in not realising the problem, as they were too busy moving goalposts? The norm would be (as per the table in the regs) that it could be just 4 HG players in the 21. If UEFA now wanted to argue differently, then MCFC would say that's an extra sanction to what we agreed - it's not our fault if you weren't clear. Then it may come down to sheer pragmatism - MCFC threatening to take it "higher", and pointing out that at least 4 foreign players could be suing UEFA for unlawful restraint of trade. Can't we just tap Platini's office?

(Edit - I've just found this from "Nerd" on wookieslair and it sounds plausible:

"The fact that no such statement has been issued (and that MCFC's version of the announcement would appear to differ in any case), suggests that the effecting of the squad list (in effect a revised Annex to the UEFA competition rules) was left unspecified by the Chief Investigator. My guess is that the IC left it to UEFA to specify the exact application of the rule; but that UEFA's lawyers have warned them against doing any such thing. If the MCFC/IC agreement was unclear, and UEFA resolve the unclarity on their own initiative; then they become a party to the application of the sanction. And since that sanction (as I understand it) has no basis in declared and proper process; that would expose UEFA (and all its squillions) to the possibility of legal action by anyone alleging financial loss due to the application of the Fair Play 'agreements'."

 

[Neville Kneville]

After reading these last few pages, I'm still confused.com. I won't be trusting anyone's views until UEFA and City reach an unambiguous agreement and our squad is named and accepted.

Somebody somewhere has a written agreement between City and UEFA and that will set out the terms of settlement. Unless you have read it you won't know what's in it.

People who have read it:
Decision makers at City and their advisors.
Decision makers at UEFA and their advisors.

People who haven't read it:
Everyone else (including journalists and from the sound of things the press officers at UEFA).

Ah, but what if the written agreement just said, as reported, that City's squad is limited to 21 players, but did not set out anything more specific? UEFA incompetence perhaps, in not realising the problem, as they were too busy moving goalposts? The norm would be (as per the table in the regs) that it could be just 4 HG players in the 21. If UEFA now wanted to argue differently, then MCFC would say that's an extra sanction to what we agreed - it's not our fault if you weren't clear. Then it may come down to sheer pragmatism - MCFC threatening to take it "higher", and pointing out that at least 4 foreign players could be suing UEFA for unlawful restraint of trade. Can't we just tap Platini's office?

(Edit - I've just found this from "Nerd" on wookieslair and it sounds plausible:

"The fact that no such statement has been issued (and that MCFC's version of the announcement would appear to differ in any case), suggests that the effecting of the squad list (in effect a revised Annex to the UEFA competition rules) was left unspecified by the Chief Investigator. My guess is that the IC left it to UEFA to specify the exact application of the rule; but that UEFA's lawyers have warned them against doing any such thing. If the MCFC/IC agreement was unclear, and UEFA resolve the unclarity on their own initiative; then they become a party to the application of the sanction. And since that sanction (as I understand it) has no basis in declared and proper process; that would expose UEFA (and all its squillions) to the possibility of legal action by anyone alleging financial loss due to the application of the Fair Play 'agreements'."

If they haven't specified any homegrown places in their revised list, then surely we are allowed 21 'free' players, & don't need any homegrown at all ?

Be very funny if that's the case.

 

[lancs blue]

Somebody somewhere has a written agreement between City and UEFA and that will set out the terms of settlement. Unless you have read it you won't know what's in it.

People who have read it:
Decision makers at City and their advisors.
Decision makers at UEFA and their advisors.

People who haven't read it:
Everyone else (including journalists and from the sound of things the press officers at UEFA).

Ah, but what if the written agreement just said, as reported, that City's squad is limited to 21 players, but did not set out anything more specific? UEFA incompetence perhaps, in not realising the problem, as they were too busy moving goalposts? The norm would be (as per the table in the regs) that it could be just 4 HG players in the 21. If UEFA now wanted to argue differently, then MCFC would say that's an extra sanction to what we agreed - it's not our fault if you weren't clear. Then it may come down to sheer pragmatism - MCFC threatening to take it "higher", and pointing out that at least 4 foreign players could be suing UEFA for unlawful restraint of trade. Can't we just tap Platini's office?

(Edit - I've just found this from "Nerd" on wookieslair and it sounds plausible:

"The fact that no such statement has been issued (and that MCFC's version of the announcement would appear to differ in any case), suggests that the effecting of the squad list (in effect a revised Annex to the UEFA competition rules) was left unspecified by the Chief Investigator. My guess is that the IC left it to UEFA to specify the exact application of the rule; but that UEFA's lawyers have warned them against doing any such thing. If the MCFC/IC agreement was unclear, and UEFA resolve the unclarity on their own initiative; then they become a party to the application of the sanction. And since that sanction (as I understand it) has no basis in declared and proper process; that would expose UEFA (and all its squillions) to the possibility of legal action by anyone alleging financial loss due to the application of the Fair Play 'agreements'."

If they haven't specified any homegrown places in their revised list, then surely we are allowed 21 'free' players, & don't need any homegrown at all ?

Be very funny if that's the case.

Indeed it would beg the question why they bothered with a squad reduction at all if they weren't prepared to specify the allowed composition of the reduced squad.

 

[pavelsrnicek]

Somebody somewhere has a written agreement between City and UEFA and that will set out the terms of settlement. Unless you have read it you won't know what's in it.

People who have read it:
Decision makers at City and their advisors.
Decision makers at UEFA and their advisors.

People who haven't read it:
Everyone else (including journalists and from the sound of things the press officers at UEFA).

Ah, but what if the written agreement just said, as reported, that City's squad is limited to 21 players, but did not set out anything more specific? UEFA incompetence perhaps, in not realising the problem, as they were too busy moving goalposts? The norm would be (as per the table in the regs) that it could be just 4 HG players in the 21. If UEFA now wanted to argue differently, then MCFC would say that's an extra sanction to what we agreed - it's not our fault if you weren't clear. Then it may come down to sheer pragmatism - MCFC threatening to take it "higher", and pointing out that at least 4 foreign players could be suing UEFA for unlawful restraint of trade. Can't we just tap Platini's office?

(Edit - I've just found this from "Nerd" on wookieslair and it sounds plausible:

"The fact that no such statement has been issued (and that MCFC's version of the announcement would appear to differ in any case), suggests that the effecting of the squad list (in effect a revised Annex to the UEFA competition rules) was left unspecified by the Chief Investigator. My guess is that the IC left it to UEFA to specify the exact application of the rule; but that UEFA's lawyers have warned them against doing any such thing. If the MCFC/IC agreement was unclear, and UEFA resolve the unclarity on their own initiative; then they become a party to the application of the sanction. And since that sanction (as I understand it) has no basis in declared and proper process; that would expose UEFA (and all its squillions) to the possibility of legal action by anyone alleging financial loss due to the application of the Fair Play 'agreements'."

If they haven't specified any homegrown places in their revised list, then surely we are allowed 21 'free' players, & don't need any homegrown at all ?

Be very funny if that's the case.

Unlikel, in default the rules would apply and they say you must have 8 home grown payers in the squad. City are unlikely to risk any further differences in interpretation after the row we had with UEFA over whether we passed FFP or not. The fact that UEFA hasn't put any statement out makes me think there is one concession we got from them.

 

[Neville Kneville]

Ah, but what if the written agreement just said, as reported, that City's squad is limited to 21 players, but did not set out anything more specific? UEFA incompetence perhaps, in not realising the problem, as they were too busy moving goalposts? The norm would be (as per the table in the regs) that it could be just 4 HG players in the 21. If UEFA now wanted to argue differently, then MCFC would say that's an extra sanction to what we agreed - it's not our fault if you weren't clear. Then it may come down to sheer pragmatism - MCFC threatening to take it "higher", and pointing out that at least 4 foreign players could be suing UEFA for unlawful restraint of trade. Can't we just tap Platini's office?

(Edit - I've just found this from "Nerd" on wookieslair and it sounds plausible:

"The fact that no such statement has been issued (and that MCFC's version of the announcement would appear to differ in any case), suggests that the effecting of the squad list (in effect a revised Annex to the UEFA competition rules) was left unspecified by the Chief Investigator. My guess is that the IC left it to UEFA to specify the exact application of the rule; but that UEFA's lawyers have warned them against doing any such thing. If the MCFC/IC agreement was unclear, and UEFA resolve the unclarity on their own initiative; then they become a party to the application of the sanction. And since that sanction (as I understand it) has no basis in declared and proper process; that would expose UEFA (and all its squillions) to the possibility of legal action by anyone alleging financial loss due to the application of the Fair Play 'agreements'."

If they haven't specified any homegrown places in their revised list, then surely we are allowed 21 'free' players, & don't need any homegrown at all ?

Be very funny if that's the case.

Indeed it would beg the question why they bothered with a squad reduction at all if they weren't prepared to specify the allowed composition of the reduced squad.

Well, the only answers would surely be that they either fucked up the proceedure, or they found that it would be against EU law, which is why it would be so funny.