Rhino's Skin

dummy? Brick wall?My debate is that you say that he knew he was signing for Man City before he was signing his pre agreement for New York....not one poster has come with evidence that shows this

referring to car crash post. Nonsonse post that should have been removed

You have no evidence or proof that before he signed a pre contract agreement he had in mind to go to Man City. If it was Man Citys and his intention to go there all summer, then why didnt he join them for a pre season?....why leave it until 6th of August meaning he couldnt play due to fitness until last week in August? No wonder this site is unofficial...plenty of unofficial nonsense and speculation being spouted off here by posters who reckon they could read Lampards mind and know exactly his thought process

as posters are throwing newpaper articles at me...here are some back (just a few amongst hundreds) that say there WAS a PRE CONTRACT AGREEMENT committment in place before all this stuff about Man City http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/frank-lampard-unhappy-at-damage-to-his-reputation-after-manchester-city-put-him-at-the-centre-of-humiliating-new-york-city-fc-row-9969146.html http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/red-faces-for-city-as-lampard-has-say-in-row-9969495.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2903696/Manchester-City-row-Premier-League-Frank-Lampard-deal.html http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/sport/football/premierleague/article4319252.ece http://mlsgb.com/2015/01/12/frank-lampard-promises-he-will-make-up-for-lost-time-with-new-york-city/ The articles show that the NYC and Man City were wrong with the way they announced 'signing' and/or alleged 'loan' etc etc but Frank lampard seems vindicated in all of this and its the clubs that lied...not him

ust saying that big players move to rivals

FROM THE TIMES AND SKY. confirming he had a pre agreement. Of course the rest is a mess...never disputed that but he DID sign a pre contract agreement . It was the 2 clubs City and NYC who got it all wrong with their statements which went against what Lampard was saying so the PL looked into it The recent transfer saga about when midfielder Frank Lampard will feature for Major League Soccer franchise New York City has been “a farce of epic proportions”, according to The Times’ James Ducker. Newly-formed MLS outfit New York City stated last July that Lampard had signed for them on a two-year contract following his departure from Chelsea. Manchester City, who are New York City’s parent club, then announced the 36-year-old would be joining them on a six-month "loan" deal ahead of the 2015 MLS season, with Lampard then due to team up with his new side in January. That was until it was revealed in December that Lampard, as a free agent, had actually agreed a short-term contract with the Premier League champions rather than being loaned to City. But when it was then confirmed the former England international would be staying at the Etihad Stadium until the end of the season, rather than teaming up with New York for the start of the MLS season, there was outrage across the Atlantic. And Ducker says City’s reputation in the United States has now taken a battering as a result of this whole affair. “It is a mess,” The Times’ Northern Football Correspondent told the Sunday Supplement. ”The nuts and bolts of it are that in July last year New York City, who are owned by Manchester City - they are their sister club and are going to start in the MLS in March - announced that Lampard had signed for them on a two-year deal that would take effect from August 1. 'Completely above board' Frank Lampard has been in fine form for Manchester City “City then announced just under a fortnight later that Lampard was joining them on loan and that was completely above board. He had signed for one club and then was loaned to another. “It was formally announced on both the New York and the City websites, but it then turned out that Lampard had not actually signed for New York and it had not been a loan to City, but in actual fact a pre-contract agreement with New York. He had signed a short-term contract with City, which ran through to June 30, with a break clause dated December 31. “And City, obviously, given what good form Lampard has been in, wanted to extend that contract, so in effect the break clause was removed, he stayed until the end of the season and that sparked outrage in New York. “And they basically accused City’s ownership of duping them, or pulling the wool over their eyes and they felt badly let down, which you can obviously understand. Confusion “In recent days there has been all sorts of confusion, with City claiming that he had only signed a short-term contract until December 31. The Premier League then confirmed that he had signed until June 30, and that their rules clearly state that you can only sign a season-long contract. And that is why the break clause of December 31 was in there, because his contract with New York was initially due to start on January 1, but that is now going to be July. “The whole thing has been a mess and a farce of epic proportions. Why those mistakes were made in the first place is beyond me, but they have had a long time to address those and this matter should never have got to the situation it is now in. “And City’s reputation overseas has certainly been damaged. The American press has nailed them, with the New York Post calling the signing of Lampard a ‘fraud’. So there is a big, big effort required now to restore their reputation over there and their director of football Claudio Reyna has been meeting with supporters, but there is a big way to go.”

think it was the Oliver Kay interview in the times?..that spelled it out. He has never said it was a loan....it was City who said that and then backtracked. As for singing....minority, Never said all...have always said majority

He signed pre agreement in June/july ....he didnt lie. But as I have said...all you doubters need to get real and realise its a case of SO WHAT. You lot are in the minority and the majority of the support will always welcome him back wether it be just as half time walk around or whatever

Figo barca/reallewendowski bayern/dortmund Tevez city/utd Etc etc etc Its not as if Lampard forced a move away from Chelsea just so he could sign for Man City. It happens....get real and live with it. If support at the away games and the bridge is anything to go by then Lampard is still adored, supported and would be made welcome back any time by them

He signed a pre agreement.....nothing wrong with that. You have absolutely no proof whatsoever that in his mind he knew he was going to Man City before he signed his agreement with NYC. After the newspaer statements and sky interviews there hasnt been a report by any journo's saying he was lying and you would have thought especially after last sky documentry they would have picked him up on it if that were the case. But at the end of the day...SO FARKING WHAT. He had every right to do what he wanted and the majority of the support still SUPPORT him

didnt work with Rooney though......not sure if good thing or bad ;-)

So what....... he was free to do what the hell he wanted. No ifs and buts......just free as the club had let him go. Most supporters are chilled about it but its the minority who seem to have got their knickers in a twist about the whole charade and shouting the loudest making more of the charade than what it actually was. And that was no contract here, he left, free to play anywhere or do what the hell he wants. Thats it..no more...no less...simple. Happens all the time when players...even legends leave. The minority just need to chill.......will they boo and jeer if he appears at the Bridge doing commentary or halftime walk round? Will they fark

What a nasty vindictive thing to say.Fortunately, the majority of the thousands that go to the Bridge will disagree with you as proven when they were singing his name during the last match v Sunderland and afterwards when Drogba was speaking about him to the support

What a load of over the top drama queen hissy fit statements. So, now it doesnt matter that you agree he had a pre agreement with the NYC franchise. We have to believe that because thats what we have been told unless its you and the other drama queens are the ones with inside information or were actually in New York witnessing all the talks that went on. Personally, once a player has left our club ( in this case he was told after the last home game v Norwich by Jose that the club were not renewing his contract and letting him go), as a supporter I wish them all the best. So what if he ended up playing for another PL team......he was a free agent and we had no rights to determine what he did. Cannot understand why so called proper football supporters get their nappies all wet when a player moves from one club to another....rivals or not. Happens all the time....especially in other big European leagues. If Lampard had fired City to the title with loads of brilliant performances and goals....then who are the mugs? I would say the Chelsea board, not him, or us as we have to go on what they believe is right and in this case over the course of the season, they have been proven right

You need to get facts right....he had a pre agreement with NYC and the MLS. At that time he DID NOT know that Man City were going to ask him to play for them

cow·ardˈkou(ə)rd/ noun 1. a person who lacks the courage to do or endure dangerous or unpleasant things. Trying to understand why you think his actions are one of a coward. As far as I can remember he has made brave choices all his footballing life... such as playing after his mother died and taking that penalty, numerous game saving goals for Chelsea when other lesser willed players might have hidden, moving from West Ham where his family ties were well established etc etc. All far from being the actions of a coward

Have you not seen the recent tv documentry on sky after his last match?He didnt know he was going to City until after he signed an agreement with New York. Going by what happened at the last match of the season v Sunderland with the handing over of the trophy, Didier Drogba made a great speech and talked about Lampard....the whole North Stand sang his name. He would be welcomed back for sure

Just wondering what proof you have that he was a liar? Even his recent tv interview explained a little of what went on. If the club do not want a player then as an ex employee any player should be free to ply their trade wherever they want and go with best wishes from all at the club and the support.

not at all....just debating my opinion.....am very relaxed

The system being what was happening in training according to reports...him not liking the regime, being asked to do things he didnt like. thats not fitting into the system. Apart from that I didnt think he was all that once the season got going

You are the one picking a fight....bold statement backed up by the manager. Luxury players like him and Mata did not fit in

said he looked out of place........look at Swindon game for example.However if your logic is that if players like kdb look great in pre season then that means they fit in...so be it. Obviously the coaches and manager deemed to differ once the season got into full swing

and in my opinion you cannot tell whether some one seriously fits in until proper matches are played hence thats why I mentioned that pre season are only played at 50 - 75% i.e more time on the ball, not so much pressure, less tackles etc etc. Even Lukaku looked good in the same pre season

I clearly did....but it proves that people shouldnt take pre season that seriously as its mainly about getting players back up to speed with their fitness levels and not about how they look when the team is playing at about 50-75%

rubbish eh? he didnt work with the system at all and as you said was in a fight with mourinho over training etc. He looked out of place and it wasnt working.