CHOULO19

But it's something he completely embraced and benefited immensely from. He was more than happy to use his legendary status with the fans to get that contract in 2013 when the club did not want to give him one or even his stature inside the club when he was having issues with AVB. That's without even mentioning what he gained from it in terms of his public image and his marketability. All very different cases from spending your whole career with same team and then playing a season or two at a direct rival for a a higher salary or a few more moments at the top.

Welcome Amjad. I hope that you get to go see JT at the bridge and that we all get to see John achieve a lot more "amjad" with Chelsea before he hangs up his boots

The issue is that it's not just the four months, it's the season and a half before the four months. Of course the club will be looking to increase his value, but the priority remains to win the next match which means putting out the best team available. I doubt even Ake will be playing more than 3 or 4 matches for the remainder of the season. This is actually why I am certain we will loan him out if he returns. Things can change incredibly quick in football. A PL club shows interest, he goes there and nails down a starting spot and he's suddenly in serious contention to get a squad player role here next season.

Put Titus Bramble in Barcelona and he'll be in the UEFA team of the year. Hypotheticals account for very little. Actual performances are what matter.

Is it? If he stays here, he is NOT getting any playing time, let's not kid ourselves. He's not getting in the team for any of the remaining match of the season ahead of Mikel or Rami, let alone Matic or Cesc, unless we win the league with a couple of matches to spare, and even then, id I'm honest, I'd rather we play Ake who has earned his place with the first team. And that in turn means that he will either leave or have to go on loan again next season and try to impress again because we simply will not go into the season relying on a player who has played almost zero football for two seasons. I have to agree with WHS, I think his chances of making it here are getting slimmer by the day.

I think the Auguero and Dzeko injuries are more serious and likely to be reoccurring. Even City and Pelligrino themselves have been rather vague about the injuries and return dates.

http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sjk6sa

Yes, but both club websites have clearly shifted from explicitly saying "loan contract" to saying just "contract" or "stay with City". And again, I'd find it very weird if BBC's David Ornstein, or the NewYork Times, are blatantly lying about having confirmed information that Frank was never an MLS player.

That is NOT anything official from FIFA itself, it is simply recycling the articles on the Man City and NYFC websites which by the way have both forsaken the any notion of loan. In fact, the Man City website clearly states that he has "extended his contract".

When did that happen? Link me to it, please.

He does not have a deal with NYC. There is no financial agreement. His new team, Manchester City, own NYFC and wanted his help to advertise for it and get some fans, while he needed a play to save his public image and not look like he move straight to City after he explicit said he would not. It was just a publicity stunt that benefited both parties: Frank and MCFC/NYFC. The only ones who lost anything in that stunt is the hundreds of people who were scammed into buying thousands of dollars worth of season tickets. And the notion that he would not be available for Sunderland came before anything was said about a season long contract with City. A lot of journalists were saying, long before it was revealed that he does not have a contract with NYC, that he will need to be re-registered. When was the last time a new player played with a team on Jan first? But let's assume for the sake of argument that all the points you made were true, you still missed the biggest one: Why would two incredibly reliable sources like the BBC and the NewYork Times report, not speculate or talk about a possibility, but say that they have definite knowledge that Frank was technically never an MSL player, while no source on the other hand, reliable or not, has claimed to have any knowledge that refutes that?

To elaborate on this:

I'm sorry, but that is completely illogical. There is no way all the paper work would have been done, filed and accepted by 3pm of the same day! It makes zero sense. The alternative is that he had a season long contract with City with a break clause that can be removed by mutual consent. It makes a lot more sense because he would not have to be re-registered and all the evidence is pointing in that direction: the most reliable source in the country reporting that that is exactly the case, the fact that his salary was never appeared in the NYC books, the NewYork Times saying the exact same thing and even Pellegrino saying as far back as November that Frank is staying till the end of the season...etc. There is no logical reason not believe that he signed for City from the start as a free agent unless you simply don't want to.

As someone on my TL put it (probably copied from one of those troll accounts): *Messi follows Chelsea, Courtois and Willian on Insta* Messi: Oh Thiago! Give the phone back to daddy now.

Sigh...

It didn't run out. It had a break clause that could end the contract on December 31st, but if removed, the contract would run till the end of the season without having to be re-registered. Again, all explained in that very BBC link you posted:

The presentation as a NYC player and the announcing that it was a loan was basically just a scam to get advertisement and get people to buy season tickets there. He was basically lying through his teeth to con people. Read that very same BBC article you posted carefully. They are trying to be polite and not call him a liar, but as I have posted above, it clearly states that he joined city as a free agent meaning he neveractually signed for NYC, something which is highlighted further by David Ornstein adding quotations around the word signed: Finally, as Tomo said above, if Frank was on loan, he would have been unavailable against Sunderland while his new loan contract was being registered.

Loan back to Vitesse? Having him with the U21s for the rest of the season practically ends his career with us.

Reports in Italy that Milan might end his loan. Anyone else would like to see him given a PL loan if that proves correct? Surely he can be a nailed on starter for teams like Burnley or Leicester?!

It was never speculation. The BBC broke the story and everyone else copied off them:

I'm sorry, but this makes less than zero sense....Why in the world we go after the Argentinian Salah when we have the real thing right here?!

There are no loan fees,mbecause there is no loan. He never signed for NYFC and in all likelihood he never will. He, as a free agent, signed a short term contract with City till December 31st with a clause to extend the deal till the end of June if he proves valuable for them. He is completely a Manchester City player.

Faith in his future is at an all time low. But if he can get a starting place in the championship at his age, that would be a huge step in restoring it. Not done, yet. But a lot of people saying it will happen.

On a free there is literally nothing to lose and all to gain. He's homegrown, versatile and could show the quality that we all know he has. I'd say he's well worth a shot.

This will probably make you feel very old, but it's actually 20 years on. That's right, 1995 was 20 years ago!