Good. It is agreed then. No running totals of the UEFA co-efficient to be recorded, as the measurment has already being determined for this year and the next.
The co-efficient for this year, Irl performance in 02/03 (0.166 discarded and replaced last season) and 03/04 (0.333 to be discarded and replaced with this seasons scores) are relatively poor in comparison with more recent years. Simply by doing better than our own scores of five years before, the LoI gain. It gained five places last season alone.
http://www.uefa.com/uefa/keytopics/k...id=584172.html
The table identifies any potential targets as they discard big numbers and must match them to stand still. Bosnia and Herc. (BiH) and Slovenia (Slv) are such targets.
This is not the ferst time Man. City have benefitted from their league placing and the efforts of others. They qualified via the Fair Play table before.
http://www.uefa.com/competitions/uef...sid=72673.html
I believe you are correct. Because the two LTU sides have the same score they look at domestic position. The post #25 middle UEFA document show a preference for CW over RU and N3.
Teams are given individual co-efficient scores. If they are below the National average than the Nat. average is awarded, this is why the majority of clubs have equal scores. Sometimes a club may be carrying the country (your mate Bert Kassels has Hafnarfjardar of Iceland with a high score, enough to earn a seeding).
The simple thing is for the LoI to continue to improve the Co-efficient so that we by-pass clubs at a time. The next bunch of North Europe countries FIN, LTU and LAT are within reach but only FIN are going backwards.