Financial Fair Play Discussion

Sheepy99

greendom wrote: »

This makes no sense. They haven't been banned from competing in the Champions League have they?

If they won the European Cup and failed to meet the fair play requirements in that season, the other clubs wouldn't stand for it.
So the same should apply for the PL

Sheepy99

DoctorGonzo08 wrote: »

It clearly is, as it was investigated. Utd could easily blow City's stadium valuation out of the water if they were to look to sell the rights to Old Trafford. Similarily Stamford Bridge and Anfield would easily come in on par if they were to sell the rights.

Well the owners are involved with (whether it be family members, close friends or business associates, i'm not sure) Etihad so it can't really be counted as being in good faith or acceptable.

That way Etihad pay whatever for the naming rights and the the owners (Sheikh Mansour), not the club just deposit that fee back into one of their accounts or the company's accounts. So in reality Etihad are paying nothing and it allows City to spend silly for the sake of it.

Same scenario with PSG and the Qatari investment group.
If you can't somewhat at least agree with that then I don't see how your opinion on the matter at hand could be taken seriously.

Iang87

I think its a load of crap to be honest anyone suggesting city should be denied the league or a champions league spot.

united are about to double the biggest shirt manufacturer deal ever (if reports are to be believed) and people will find this acceptable but city cant because they havent got the history/global appeal united have.

Look at what Financial fair play, A rule put in place by the old guard to protect the old guard. means they dont have to spend much and its tough for them to be caught up to.

DoctorGonzo08

Sheepy99 wrote: »

Well the owners are involved with (whether it be family members, close friends or business associates, i'm not sure) Etihad so it can't really be counted as being in good faith or acceptable.

That way Etihad pay whatever for the naming rights and the the owners (Sheikh Mansour), not the club just deposit that fee back into one of their accounts or the company's accounts. So in reality Etihad are paying nothing and it allows City to spend silly for the sake of it.

Same scenario with PSG and the Qatari investment group.
If you can't somewhat at least agree with that then I don't see how your opinion on the matter at hand could be taken seriously.

Of course Etihad are paying. Etihad are not the same as City. Just because they're is a connection between both business shouldn't disallow the investment in marketing. Etihad have invested heavily into their marketing of City and are using them as a global brand for their airline. I can't see why they would not be allowed to buy rights to shirt/stadium deals with City just because the Owners have family connections.

The value of the stadium deal is resonable when compared with the values of the clubs I've mentioned previously, whereas the PSG stadium valuation was a little OTT, however they are recieving less than 30% of the sanction imposed on City, and that's ignoring the efforts City have put in place to reduce their loss.

Blatter

Iang87 wrote: »

Look at what Financial fair play, A rule put in place by the old guard to protect the old guard. means they dont have to spend much and its tough for them to be caught up to.

No it's not. It's a set of rules put in place in order to prevent clubs spending far beyond their means as a business (thus putting the long term health of the club at risk) and also to help curtail transfer and wage inflation, which in itself leads to clubs spending beyond their means.

FFP is good for the game and I'm fairly sure Manchester City agreed and signed up to it.

Agueroooo

Blatter wrote: »

No it's not. It's a set of rules put in place in order to prevent clubs spending far beyond their means as a business (thus putting the long term health of the club at risk) and also to help curtail transfer and wage inflation, which in itself leads to clubs spending beyond their means.

FFP is good for the game.

all true.^

but there is an element of 'pulling up the ladders' and a new billionaire owner wouldn't get away with half of what those within the circle currently do.
I understand that was inevitable to bring everyone into line over the interim period, but it still reeks of bending over somewhat, and for me put FFP on the wrong foot from the start.

but the bigger picture for us fans is that FFP will (hopefully) prevent a club being destroyed by matters off the field.

DoctorGonzo08

Blatter wrote: »

No it's not. It's a set of rules put in place in order to prevent clubs spending far beyond their means as a business (thus putting the long term health of the club at risk) and also to help curtail transfer and wage inflation, which in itself leads to clubs spending beyond their means.

FFP is good for the game and I'm fairly sure Manchester City agreed and signed up to it.

This has no effect on the elite group. Just take the £300k a week Rooney deal. All FFP does in this instance is allow the likes of Real & Man Utd to continue to outbid the next tier teams. In essence, Yaya is not allowed a pay increase unless of course he wants to move to Utd or Real. This is a bit hypocritical when Chelsea, City and PSG are named as the reason for wage increase.

I do agree that transfer/wages need to be capped/controlled, but FFP isn't the answer.

DoctorGonzo08

Agueroooo wrote: »

all true.^

but there is an element of 'pulling up the ladders' and a new billionaire owner wouldn't get away with half of what those within the circle currently do.
I understand that was inevitable to bring everyone into line over the interim period, but it still reeks of bending over somewhat, and for me put FFP on the wrong foot from the start.

but the bigger picture for us fans is that FFP will (hopefully) prevent a club being destroyed by matters off the field.

Agreed, FFP main outcome should greatly decrease the likelihood of Clubs being destroyed due to business negligence, and will also stop what City did the first year with splashing out £160m in one summer to try and make a huge jump into competing.

Blatter

DoctorGonzo08 wrote: »

This has no effect on the elite group. Just take the £300k a week Rooney deal. All FFP does in this instance is allow the likes of Real & Man Utd to continue to outbid the next tier teams. In essence, Yaya is not allowed a pay increase unless of course he wants to move to Utd or Real. This is a bit hypocritical when Chelsea, City and PSG are named as the reason for wage increase.

I do agree that transfer/wages need to be capped/controlled, but FFP isn't the answer.

I didn't say it prevents wage/transfer inflation, I said it helps curtail it.

The less clubs capable of paying huge transfers/wages, the less inflation will occur.

The likes of United/Bayern/Real/Barca do cause inflation but the difference is it's with their own revenue and within their means for the most part (although this might be disputed to an extent with Madrid/Barca and their apparent 'bank loans')

I'm not sure how legal a wage/transfer cap would be within EU law.

Agueroooo

Blatter wrote: »

I'm not sure how legal a wage/transfer cap would be within EU law.

this is the crux of the problem for me.

I truly believe FIFA want to introduce this and see it as a silver bullet, but know it will never get pass the EU, so are now trying to do through proxy (FFP).

The next few weeks will show us just how big FIFA's balls really are.

DoctorGonzo08

I think the confusion by some about the likes of Bayern/Utd/Barca/Madrid being protected, is due to the fact that people believe FFP is there to fix everything and stop wages/transfers from teams outside the 4 mentioned.

FFP is a good thing to protect clubs liquidity in the long term and I don't believe it has any claim to effecting transfer/wages, which is an entirely different problem which has been around for years and the main offenders are the 4 mentioned, not the likes of Chelsea/City/PSG.

I think people are always going to get angry when punished under FFP, when the teams with massive bank loans or bank supported are immune to any consequence.

DoctorGonzo08

Agueroooo wrote: »

this is the crux of the problem for me.

I truly believe FIFA want to introduce this and see it as a silver bullet, but know it will never get pass the EU, so are now trying to do through proxy (FFP).

The next few weeks will show us just how big FIFA's balls really are.

If they do push it in under FFP, it is going to be completley unfair as the criteria are heavily weighed against anyone without an established brand. It would effectively turn every league into what the Scottish League was with Celtic & Rangers.

AdamD

Just on the EU law point:

The French and English rugby leagues have wage caps. What's the difference?

EuropeanSon

AdamD wrote: »

Just on the EU law point:

The French and English rugby leagues have wage caps. What's the difference?

Might not have been tested in court, if all the participating clubs are happy with it.

Not that I know it would be against the law or anything, just one possible explanation.

COYVB

Blatter wrote: »

I'm not sure how legal a wage/transfer cap would be within EU law.

Depending on how to they do it, it'd be perfectly legal. If they did it properly, it'd be that your registered squad's wage can't exceed a certain amount. That'd be the key thing. You could, if you wanted, pay another 10 players, but they wouldn't be in your squad. Absolutely nothing there prevents players from working. They'd still be footballers, turning up for training every day and they'd still be getting paid, they just wouldn't be eligible for registration.

No different to how transfer windows are technically restriction of trade too, and most likely equally "illegal" - in that they're not at all

glued

So City signed up to the rules and agreed to them. They're now being punished and are now whinging that it's not fair.

Also Man United, Real Madrid, Liverpool, Barcelona etc are global brands so obviously they will get more sponsorship money. Even Chelsea had a decent following before hand across the world pre-Abramovich. They have worked well and built up a brand and now have a big following in some Asian markets too. City have come out of nowhere, sponsoring themselves to avoid FFP sanctions and all this while they have thousands of empty seats when they're about to win the league. It's pretty pathetic.

It's not elitist, it's about sustainable growth. Look at Dortmund. They're the model. I agree that FFP isn't perfect but I'm delighted that something is being done.

DoctorGonzo08

glued wrote: »

So City signed up to the rules and agreed to them. They're now being punished and are now whinging that it's not fair.

City have come out of nowhere, sponsoring themselves to avoid FFP sanctions and all this while they have thousands of empty seats when they're about to win the league. It's pretty pathetic.

I'm delighted that something is being done.

Your post is pretty pathetic to be fair. Have you actually read up on any of this or do you make it up as you go along?

City are appealing pre existing agreements that UEFA have gone back on. In light of the hugely decreased sanction PSG recieved, I think anyone would be stupid not to.

As for the rest of your thousands of empty seats nonesense, come out of nowhere speech and the same garbage, which has nothing to do with FFP.

You should have just posted: I hate City, and I hope for any reason they get destroyed.

glued

DoctorGonzo08 wrote: »

Your post is pretty pathetic to be fair. Have you actually read up on any of this or do you make it up as you go along?

City are appealing pre existing agreements that UEFA have gone back on. In light of the hugely decreased sanction PSG recieved, I think anyone would be stupid not to.

As for the rest of your thousands of empty seats nonesense, come out of nowhere speech and the same garbage, which has nothing to do with FFP.

You should have just posted: I hate City, and I hope for any reason they get destroyed.

I don't hope City get destroyed; I don't know where you got that from. I was under the impression that PSG got lessor sanctions because they agreed to the initial sanctions. City contested it and UEFA put the foot down.

City lost £153 million over the last two seasons. UEFA allow up to €42M of a loss for infrastructure and youth development. City have breached this. They deserve whatever sanctions they get. It's simple really.

Smithwicks Man

glued wrote: »

I don't hope City get destroyed; I don't know where you got that from. I was under the impression that PSG got lessor sanctions because they agreed to the initial sanctions. City contested it and UEFA put the foot down.

City lost £153 million over the last two seasons. UEFA allow up to €42M of a loss for infrastructure and youth development. City have breached this. They deserve whatever sanctions they get. It's simple really.

In complete agreement here. Not anti-City by any means but they have been spending an obscene amount of money in terms of wages and transfer fees.

The fine is fully deserved although I can't see how fining teams is going to help. Squad reductions and a transfer embargo are the way to go.

Sheepy99

Why do people always use the "EU Law" card.
If you think about it there's no law stating that UEFA has to allow teams into the competition, whatever the circumstance.

"Don't like the wage cap? Going to the courts about it?"
"Fine but you'll never get an invitation into our competitions again"

Simple as that really. All this EU law whinging is becoming a little tiresome.

Sheepy99

DoctorGonzo08 wrote: »

Your post is pretty pathetic to be fair. Have you actually read up on any of this or do you make it up as you go along?

City are appealing pre existing agreements that UEFA have gone back on. In light of the hugely decreased sanction PSG recieved, I think anyone would be stupid not to.

As for the rest of your thousands of empty seats nonesense, come out of nowhere speech and the same garbage, which has nothing to do with FFP.

You should have just posted: I hate City, and I hope for any reason they get destroyed.

You really, really love arguing a point for the sake of it don't you?

COYVB

Sheepy99 wrote: »

Why do people always use the "EU Law" card.

Because it's drummed into them that certain things are illegal without them actually stopping to try to figure out whether they actually are or not.

Preventing someone from getting employment? That's illegal.

Preventing a sports team from employing someone? That's illegal too.

Preventing a sports team from registering a player was signed in a way that doesn't fit the rules of the competition in question? That's in no way shape or form illegal.

Otherwise let's all take the local under 15s teams to court because they won't let us play for them. Or sue the Irish international women's team for refusing to pick us even though we're sure we're good enough. Hell, let's sue UEFA in a class action suit because they won't let the best players in Europe play for the Irish international team.

Kirby

Sheepy99 wrote: »

Why do people always use the "EU Law" card.
If you think about it there's no law stating that UEFA has to allow teams into the competition, whatever the circumstance.

"Don't like the wage cap? Going to the courts about it?"
"Fine but you'll never get an invitation into our competitions again"

Simple as that really. All this EU law whinging is becoming a little tiresome.

It's not as simple as that. If the 4 big teams from England, Spain, Italy and Germany break away and form their own league.....UEFA have nothing. And they know it. They run the game because the clubs allow it.

Forget 16 teams doing it. Try 8. If Cheslea, City, United, Bayern, Barca, Real, Juventus and PSG....who are all big spending clubs with huge international following weren't in the Champions league......the champions league loses its value.

Its the main reason why Financial Fair play punishments are being introduced softly, softly. No expulsions. Because UEFA know if they tried to, the clubs would revolt.

COYVB

Kirby wrote: »

It's not as simple as that. If the 4 big teams from England, Spain, Italy and Germany break away and form their own league.....UEFA have nothing. And they know it. They run the game because the clubs allow it.

Forget 16 teams doing it. Try 8. If Cheslea, City, United, Bayern, Barca, Real, Juventus and PSG....who are all big spending clubs with huge international following weren't in the Champions league......the champions league loses its value.

Its the main reason why Financial Fair play punishments are being introduced softly, softly. No expulsions. Because UEFA know if they tried to, the clubs would revolt.

UEFA have a bit more power than people think though. If some clubs tried what you suggested, UEFA could ban all their players from international football, ban them from games against UEFA clubs, and refuse to register any of their players who wanted to sign back for a UEFA club.

There's an equal risk for any clubs attempting a breakaway - if it didn't work for whatever reason, they'd be screwed. There's plenty of scope for UEFA to throw their weight around

Kirby

COYVB wrote: »

UEFA have a bit more power than people think though. If some clubs tried what you suggested, UEFA could ban all their players from international football, ban them from games against UEFA clubs, and refuse to register any of their players who wanted to sign back for a UEFA club.

Well we are dealing hypothetically here but sure lets see it through.

Firstly, tournaments like the World Cup are run by FIFA so it would only be European internationals that would be effected.

Secondly, the 8 clubs I listed are chock full of internationals from Spain, England, France, Holland, Germany, etc. If the likes of Rooney, Ibrahomivic, Robben, Ribery, Ronaldo,etc were banned from international football due to a Club decision.....do you think the countries would stand for it? Of course not.

The International Associations would revolt the same way the clubs would and UEFA would lose the euro's as well.

Its a symbiotic relationship between the clubs and the governing bodies. They need and help each other. There is so much money to be made and they cant make it on their own. But the bulk of the power rests with the clubs. A "division one to premiership" style revolt can happen quickly and can cost billions to UEFA and FIFA. They wouldn't be stupid enough to seriously start sabre rattling with regards FFP punishments. It will be lip service. No more.

Sheepy99

Kirby wrote: »

It's not as simple as that. If the 4 big teams from England, Spain, Italy and Germany break away and form their own league.....UEFA have nothing. And they know it. They run the game because the clubs allow it.

Forget 16 teams doing it. Try 8. If Cheslea, City, United, Bayern, Barca, Real, Juventus and PSG....who are all big spending clubs with huge international following weren't in the Champions league......the champions league loses its value.

Its the main reason why Financial Fair play punishments are being introduced softly, softly. No expulsions. Because UEFA know if they tried to, the clubs would revolt.

An interesting point, but although they'd miss out on potentially hundres of millions, they'd still have more than enough to prevent them going out of business.
Then there's the European championships to bring in cash, plus (don't know if it's true, just heard it mentioned here) UEFA is supposedly a sub-section of FIFA, who are cashed up

DoctorGonzo08

glued wrote: »

I don't hope City get destroyed; I don't know where you got that from. I was under the impression that PSG got lessor sanctions because they agreed to the initial sanctions. City contested it and UEFA put the foot down.

City lost £153 million over the last two seasons. UEFA allow up to €42M of a loss for infrastructure and youth development. City have breached this. They deserve whatever sanctions they get. It's simple really.

If you look back on the posts, I have always said City should have to pay the fine imposed as the rules were broken. I was arguing the point of why wouldn't City challenge the sanction if they believed the agreements had been changed from what was originally set down? Add to that the inital sanctions to City and PSG are completely offset, any club would appeal that decision.

At the end of the day City, PSG and 7 others have broken the rules of FFp so they all deserve to be fined so that FFP does what it initial set out to do. However, it seems FFP is evolving before every controlling the debt as was the original remit. They have now changed from debt to overspending, ignored original investigation they carried out, and are pushing towards transfer/wage regulation. It needs to establish it's benchmark on debt first, which is for the Clubs own good, before trying to change the remit.

Overall I agreed with the point you were making in your post, but throw away comments which are made up about thousands of empty seats was only ever going to come across as anti-city.

Sheepy99 wrote: »

You really, really love arguing a point for the sake of it don't you?

Is that not the basis of any debate? Also, very funny you address it with this comment while also having a needless go at my posts in other threads. Congrats!

Sheepy99

Ooh! A friend!

mike65

Looks like City will have to wait a bit longer to discover their fate - the man who was in charge of the final appraisal has died after a fall.

Turtwig

RIP

Conspiracy buffs spring into full gear now.

Agueroooo

Man City accept fine.

Details from Uefa here,......http://www.uefa.org/MultimediaFiles/Download/OfficialDocument/uefaorg/ClubFinancialControl/02/10/69/00/2106900_DOWNLOAD.pdf

Summary;

€60mil fine over 3yrs?..they will get €40mil back if they meet all criteria.
CL squad reduced.

Slap on the wrist but most importantly the line is drawn in the sand.

citytillidie

COYVB wrote: »

UEFA have a bit more power than people think though. If some clubs tried what you suggested, UEFA could ban all their players from international football, ban them from games against UEFA clubs, and refuse to register any of their players who wanted to sign back for a UEFA club.

There's an equal risk for any clubs attempting a breakaway - if it didn't work for whatever reason, they'd be screwed. There's plenty of scope for UEFA to throw their weight around

That is how the Champions League came about the bigger teams in the 90's were talking about breaking away from UEFA and running their own league

rob316

Transfer embargo and fine straight up not.over 3 years is the only way to go IMO.

Agueroooo

Man city statement ..
http://www.mcfc.co.uk/News/Club-news/2014/May/Club-statement-16-May

- MCFC will lose 10m Euros of its share of income from UEFA for competing in the Champions League completion in season 2013-14. 
- MCFC will lose 10m Euros of its share of income from UEFA for competing in the Champions League for season 2014-15
- Rather than having an accumulative allowance of 30m Euros of losses over the next two reporting years (like all other clubs), MCFC will have specific stipulated allowances for 2013-14 and 2014-15 of 20m Euros and 10m Euros respectively.  Significantly, MCFC plans to be profitable in 2014-15 and in the years that follow.
- The MCFC Champions League squad for the 2014-15 competition will be limited to 21 players.  In 2013-14 the club registered 23 players for the competition and used 21.
- The Club’s expenditure on new players for the upcoming summer transfer window, on top of income from players it might sell, will be limited to 60m euros. This will have no material impact on the Club’s planned transfer activity.
- The wage bill of the whole club (playing and non-playing staff) for 2014-15 will need to remain at the same level as that of 2013-14 season. It is important to note that additional bonuses for performances can be paid outside this number. Importantly, in reality, the existing MCFC business plan sees a natural decline in that wage bill.
- Given the unique nature of the new City Football Group structure – which incorporates MCFC, New York City, Melbourne Heart and a number of other companies, the Club has agreed to certain non-material terms in order to make FFP reporting as easy as possible for UEFA to discern.

Lol..bit of a go fück you.

Utopia Parkway

Agueroooo wrote: »

Man city statement ..
http://www.mcfc.co.uk/News/Club-news/2014/May/Club-statement-16-May



Lol..bit of a go fück you.

City will have to tighten their belts and only spend 60M this Summer. Hard times.

mike65

hahaha!

EuropeanSon

I think it's a pretty good start. They could suffer with that squad restriction if they get a few injuries, and if they can't break even they'll presumably suffer more in future.

Agueroooo

It really is comical but.

You have all the big media outlets reporting stuff like 'City fined €60million and must reduce CL squad'

scratch the surface a bit and you see the real truth, and then the City statement (which I admire funnily enough) which shows the real slight impact it will have.

Agueroooo

EuropeanSon wrote: »

They could suffer with that squad restriction if they get a few injuries, and if they can't break even they'll presumably suffer more in future.

Man city statement; - The MCFC Champions League squad for the 2014-15 competition will be limited to 21 players.  In 2013-14 the club registered 23 players for the competition and used 21.

.

Utopia Parkway

EuropeanSon wrote: »

I think it's a pretty good start. They could suffer with that squad restriction if they get a few injuries, and if they can't break even they'll presumably suffer more in future.

What's the penalty for a repeat offence I wonder?

50M over 3 years is a drop in the ocean for them to be fair.

greendom

I imagine the 60m is a net figure so if Aguero went to Real Madrid for example they could spend 60 plus whatever they got for him

EuropeanSon

Agueroooo wrote: »

.

What's your point?

They wouldn't have suffered with the restriction this season. That doesn't mean they will be as lucky with players being available next season.

As far as I remember their injuries didn't coincide with the knockout games this year.

Agueroooo

Utopia Parkway wrote: »

What's the penalty for a repeat offence I wonder?
.

They are sent to face the Dark Lords who may not 'invite' them to the CL should they qualify.

In case Manchester City fails to comply with any of the terms of this Agreement, the UEFA CFCB Chief Investigator shall refer the case to the Adjudicatory Chamber, as foreseen in Art. 15 (4) of the Procedural Rules.

If this was to happen I shall be seen consuming a hat.

EuropeanSon

greendom wrote: »

I imagine the 60m is a net figure so if Aguero went to Real Madrid for example they could spend 60 plus whatever they got for him

That's what they seem to say.

Drexel

Utopia Parkway wrote: »

What's the penalty for a repeat offence I wonder?

50M over 3 years is a drop in the ocean for them to be fair.

It's more than I ever expected UEFA to do. It is only a drop in the ocean for them but it might make them comply more in future.

Sheepy99

Perhaps DoctorGonzo was right. Seemed to have chickened out anyway

mike65

The squad/home ground rule restriction is the real punishment - City can just about summon the 8 players they need but are likely to lose Barry, Richards, Wright, Lescott and Rodwell this summer so they will have to buy British or promote some of their better U21s to the CL squad, come next Spring in the knockout phase City could have a pretty thin bench - little in the way of game changers. Danny Ings to the rescue?

Be interesting to see what would happen if they break the rules again

batistuta9

mike65 wrote: »

The squad/home ground rule restriction is the real punishment - City can just about summon the 8 players they need but are likely to lose Barry, Richards, Wright, Lescott and Rodwell this summer so they will have to buy British or promote some of their better U21s to the CL squad, come next Spring in the knockout phase City could have a pretty thin bench - little in the way of game changers. Danny Ings to the rescue?

except for the fact that it doesn't really exist, at least not in the way you think. though everyone in the media seems to be throwing it into their stories as well
- i've seen no mention of special rules changes to HG players that applies to city now or PSG so i assume it's just normal rules but limited to 21 max. you only need 8 if you want to name 25, 7/24 etc.ANNEX VIII p87

you can't name more than 17 non HG is the important part of the rule so they only need 4 (hart, clichy, milner, ?)
the other spot might give them bother if they do lose all those, though they might look to keep richards or rodwell now.

other general CL squad rules - these differ from the PL, where <=17 non HG is also the real important part & HG is just HG - is that to go on the B list of u21s a player must be at the club for 2 years (arsenal had to put sanogo & miyaichi on A this year)
& if you're having 8 HG players, no more than 4 of them can be association trained they need to be club trained

the u21 rule might have an affect on them signing wise, even more than them not being allowed to increase the wage bill from this year.

Pepe LeFrits

batistuta9 wrote: »

except for the fact that it doesn't really exist, at least not in the way you think. though everyone in the media seems to be throwing it into their stories as well
- i've seen no mention of special rules changes to HG players that applies to city now or PSG so i assume it's just normal rules but limited to 21 max. you only need 8 if you want to name 25, 7/24 etc.ANNEX VIII p87

you can't name more than 17 non HG is the important part of the rule so they only need 4 (hart, clichy, milner, ?)
the other spot might give them bother if they do lose all those, though they might look to keep richards or rodwell now.

other general CL squad rules - these differ from the PL, where <=17 non HG is also the real important part & HG is just HG - is that to go on the B list of u21s a player must be at the club for 2 years (arsenal had to put sanogo & miyaichi on A this year)
& if you're having 8 HG players, no more than 4 of them can be association trained they need to be club trained

the u21 rule might have an affect on them signing wise, even more than them not being allowed to increase the wage bill from this year.

It's not really clear either way, that document specifically says 8 spots are reserved for the List A, so it's something UEFA will have to clarify.