OhForAGreavsie

You aren't responsible for what Jimmy Carr does, only for what you choose to do or not to do.

Many, many years ago I was travelling back from a night game at QPR. I was on the upper deck of a bus and the conductor (told you it was a long time ago) was Jewish. One lad, a Chelsea fan, thought it was funny to chirp up with the hissing sounds and the breathe deeply comments. The conductor was mortified and fearful. Who knows what terrors may have been visited on his family or even what horrors the man might have seen himself. The stupid little boy who was causing offence was a little younger than me. Like me, he was on his own so when I told him to shut up, he did. I was bigger than him but I don't think that's why he quit. That type of behaviour was all too common in the shed and the North Bank in those days. I'm pretty certain he was just repeating some learned behaviour. I don't think he had ever been challenged about it before or been exposed to its effects. I think he stopped because it suddenly dawned on him that it wasn't just something to be laughed at, but was something that mimicked a wickedness. A wickedness which created countless real victims and left a lifetime of indelibly evil memories in its wake. But you are correct, if you want to joke about the chief perpetrators of that wickedness it is your right to do so.

Freedom of speech is much in the news. Unless that freedom includes the right to offend then it is no freedom at all but, come on, this? Maybe I'm getting too old but I am never going to find levity in any allusion to the Schutzstaffel, whether or not that allusion is intended.

I apologise for my earlier comment in which I described this post as 'nonsense'. Choulo was right and I was wrong.

Sorry.

Welcome Amjd. I hope that you get to fulfill your wish one day.

Just to be clear it's not only applicable when Europa League players move to Champions' League clubs, it also works the other way round too. No player is allowed to represent more than one club in the same competition but each club is allowed to play a maximum of 1 player who has previously appeared for a different club in a different UEFA competition during that season.

I acknowledge that City, who initially used the term loan to describe the move, have stopped doing so and that it is reasonable for Choulo and others to read that as confirmation of their point of view. On the question of Lamps status with Chelsea fans I'm not personally too bothered but I'm desperate that he should not be booed on 31st January. He is a legend of our club and if he should be booed it would send an appalling message about Chelsea fans. If people don't want to cheer him then fine but please no booing. Personally I never believed Frank was as good a player as his reputation suggests and I never loved him the way most CFC fans do, or did anyway. I think that makes it easier for me not to be too angry with him now. When Scholes retired from international football the United man cited certain England players playing selfishly for themselves as one of his reasons for quiting. I always thought Frank was one of the people Scholes meant. I have no evidence to support that opinion but selfishness was often a complaint I made against Frank myself.

I found it by going to fifa.com and searching Lampard.

FIFA themselves say that NYC have given the contract extension their blessing. Strange if it's nothing to do with them. Other than that, we're talking round in circles so perhaps it's time to agree to disagree.

Paperwork a. What on Earth would cause either of us to think that City would have started the paperwork on the last day? Much more likely that this would have happened earlier. b. Paperwork has been done it a matter of hours before now, never mind a whole day. Salary a. City announced early on, in response to criticism that the deal was an FFP ruse, that they were paying Frank's salary in full so NYC will not have been paying it. b. Presumably the contract will have been written such that Frank's NYC salary would begin, and would appear in the books, during the next MLS season. Loan/Free Agent a. The fact that the deal was announced as a loan is at least one reason for believing it was a loan. b. I acknowledge that the deal could have been a free agent signing but that would leave us to believe that NYC were prepared to enter a multimillion pound agreement with Frank and then give away any control over what he does in the mean time while waiting for the new MLS season. While NYC were busy selling tickets and sponsorships on the understanding that Frank would be part of their future squad, legally, Frank would have been free to head over to the park for Sunday football with his mates. That's a massive risk for NYC that could see their plans scuppered. In those circumstances NYC would almost certainly been able to get out of any financial commitment to Frank but what about their own background deals? In my view any lawyer who allowed NYC to sign so lax an arrangement would be an idiot. I'd bet everything you own that they'd have taken control of Frank's registration. Nothing else makes any sense.

His contract with City & his registration are two different things. The requirement that his re-registration should be in place before he plays against Sunderland does not mean he could not have played against them. It means just what it said, he needed to to registered and since he played, clearly he was. From a practical standpoint that just means that all the necessary paperwork, signed off by all interested parties, needed to be filed with The FA and FIFA, and clearance received from FIFA, by close of play on 31/12/2014. That must have been what City were waiting for before confirming his availability. As for the date of his NYC contract, I have no reason to doubt the stated date of 01/08/2014 especially since logic dictates that it should be that date rather than a later one. Having made a big financial commitment to the Lampard deal, it would make sense for New York to take control of his playing options by lodging his registration with FIFA as soon as the window opened. I say it makes sense but in truth nothing else makes any sense. At all.

If his temporary registration with City had expired, and it seems it ran until 31st December, Lampard would have needed to be re-registered in either case. Clearly he was.

Nonsense I'm afraid. Think you must have enjoyed Christmas a bit too much Choulo. Presentation as NYC player. Man City's tweet announcing Lampard joining them on loan from NYC. BBC report confirming loan from NYC to Man City extended. You know all this Choulo, everybody knows all this. Time to chuck out the turkey sandwiches and get back to work mate.

City have publicly stated that they are paying Lampard's wages in full and, in all likelihood, are also paying a loan fee to NYC. I'm fairly certain that the FFP auditors will take a look at the size of the fee to ensure that it is set at an appropriate level so I highly doubt that there is anything going on here for FFP purposes. If anything, because of the high level of scrutiny this deal was always bound to attract, City have probably gone out of their way to make the loan arrangements as squeaky clean as can be.

Please don't all shout at once, but... The notion of consistency is, in my opinion, much misunderstood. None of us, footballers and non-footballers alike, is consistent. We all have performance ups and downs from day to day, and from week to week. Talent is the regulator. People with enough ability for the work they do, can be effective even when they are below their best but others, like Oscar, need to be at, or very near, their top level to make a good contribution. The trouble is all players are somewhere below their best most of the time. That's a problem if you happen to be one of those who can really only contribute when at your best because it means you are not going to achieve whole lot much of the time. When a player is said to be inconsistent as frequently as Oscar is, that's really just code for not good enough at this level. Of course Oscar not being good enough is not our big problem. Our big problem is that he's still the best option we have for his position. That's the issue we need to address.

I wouldn't say now @Barbara. In my opinion it's been clear since before Christmas 2013 that we need two AM upgrades. We can go around in circles but the bottom line is we will never be the team we want to be with any of Oscar/Schurrle/Willian as first choice players.

Oscar's problem is that his talent ceiling is too low. A ten for a club with our ambition should be an outstanding play maker with great tactical awareness and work rate as necessary bolt-ons. He generally has the bolt-ons but there's nothing he can do about the low ceiling.

I only saw cork play once, for the 18s, and he impressed me more than Chalobah does. Chalobah does more eye-catching stuff but he also makes many more mistakes. In terms of solid, reliable, professional contribution to a team, Jack is ahead.

Apologies for repeating myself but in Oscar we have a player who is of backup quality. Outstanding is the benchmark to be a starting quality ten for a club with our ambitions.

It's obvious that we need to strengthen the squad yes, but that's not the same as being obvious that we will.

Deleted

I watched a number of Chalobah's performances for Watford as well as being a regular visitor to a one of their fans' forums while he was there. Along with the positive, I saw many negatives too and this was reflected in the comments I read. Granted most posts were of the positive kind including one bemoaning that Chalobah would be missing a game and saying how incredible it was that an 18 year old was the key member of their midfield. We have to remember though that this was just the writer's opinion. There were also many more sober, and in my opinion more accurate, assessments. There is a phenomenon in football where new, and especially young, players benefit from an expanded honeymoon period. During that honeymoon, a player is given maximum credit for everything he does well, while anything he does badly is either excused away or just ignored all together. As a result of this the general tendency is for the quality of these players to be overrated. Eventually though reality breaks through.

No he doesn't. Very, very few of the ambitious passes Wilian attempts find their intended target. Most often they are misdirected or cut-out. Either way, possession breaks down on him an awful lot.

Outside of the World Cup, I haven't watched Cudrado but he looks OK. I'm a big Firmino fan but he hasn't been playing as well this season. A lot of misplaced passes from him. I don't mean stats wise, for all I know the stats would contradict what I'm saying, but he has not been as effective in completing the passes that damage the opposition as he was being last term.