🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 Frank Lampard

[SpecialistsInFailure 68]

So we're still on that? Boo fucking hoo!!

Enough with the direct rivals bullshit! Didier moved to fucking Turkey and yet he ended up playing against us and potentially costing us a shot at winning a title. Had he scored a winner then, it would suck just like Lamps' goal but I would've been completely fine with it. Life goes on and people move on.

Drogba was clearly sub-par in both those games (on purpose) and he never looked like scoring because he didn't want to score against us. That's one of the many reasons I think that Drogba > Terry, Osgood etc

[CHOULO19 24,332]

I don't see how further down the line, in 40 or so years, how people could still hold a grudge against Lamps for scoring against us once after 13 years of being an incredible player for us. Will you really let one goal tarnish everything? Even if, and it is highly unlikely, it costs us the title this season, will you remember this goal over his 2 at Bolton, penalty against Liverpool, impossible goal vs Barca, captaining us in the 2012 Champions League final, scoring in the 2008 final, becoming our all time top goalscorer at Villa Park, the last minute goal against Stoke, scoring the winner in the 2009 FA Cup Final, being key in our first ever double. I could go on and on and on.

But it's not about his past achievements. He is a Chelsea legend, one of our best players in history and our top scorer, nothing can take that away. But similarly, his achievements can't take away the fact that he chose to play for a rival of ours after explicitly saying that he wouldn't ever play in England.

Those great goals and all the things he helped us win are etched in history; nothing can change them. But those goals are proof of what a great and amazing player he was. But this isn't about Frank the player, this is about Frank the Chelsea fan. This is about what his decision to move to City says about him. This is about how much he loves the club and how much he respects the fans.

And the question in your post might as well be directed at Frank himself. Is he willing to let 13 glorious years be tarnished for a few extra months in the EPL? Because you can't blame the fans for that. Some of the reactions have been completely over the top, and the insults towards him are embarrassing. But at the end of the day, those are emotional reactions. It is his conscious decision that put him in this position. You have to blame his conscious decision and not the fans' emotional reactions.

And one last point: For me at least, it's not about the goal. Like I said before, I expect nothing less than him giving 100%. It is about his decision to sign for City and put him self in a position where he has to play and try to score against us. The goal was just a reminder of what that decision could mean. It was also proof that some of the reasoning behind defending him when he moved to City ("It's just for fitness.", "He won't even make their bench.", "He has a clause where he can't play against Chelsea."....etc.) were all just excuses for us to try our best and not see the truth.

[Fernando 6,585]

I understand he's a professional and everything but I wouldn't have minded if he missed the goal on purpose. I know if I was in his position I would have hit it to go slightly away from the goal, and I would have firmly stated beforehand that I wouldn't want to play against Chelsea, so if the manager played me anyways his loss. I'm not mad with Frank or anything but I must admit I'm a bit disappointed that he seems to be going back on his words again and again. First he said he wouldn't play for a rival and then that he wouldn't play against us but not only he plays for a rival and against us but he also scores, you can't help but feel a bit cheated on.

He's a professional and has to do his job.

Like Batistuta scoring against his loved fiorentina or Mourinho knocking us out of the CL.

Yet bati and Mourinho are still loved by their respective fans.

No difference here.

[zolayes 14,489]

meltdown on here should come soon

[Fulham Broadway 17,319]

Thats it I am burning my lampard shirt, pants, and Frankie Doll Mask and making a ''Fuck Off Fat Frank You Judas'' banner out of a stained bedsheet for the return fixture

[Fernando 6,585]

Manchester City have extended Frank Lampard's loan deal from New York City FC.

The former Chelsea superstar - who scored against his old club in a 1-1 draw at the weekend - will now remain at the Etihad until February before beginning his MLS career.

By extending his loan stay with the Premier League champions beyond the original date of the end of 2014, Lampard will now potentially be able to face his old club once again: the two sides meet again in the league on January 31st.

[Term-X 7,891]

He's a professional and has to do his job.

Like Batistuta scoring against his loved fiorentina or Mourinho knocking us out of the CL.

Yet bati and Mourinho are still loved by their respective fans.

No difference here.

There is a MASSIVE difference.

Lampard said he wouldn't move to another English club, when he signed for City.. he said he won't play against Chelsea. I can't remember Mourinho saying he wouldn't manage another football club ever again when he left, or maybe I missed that quote.

Not that Mourinho is comparable, Lampard is an icon here/personification of the club, Jose doesn't compare.. yet.

[Dion 2,476]

There is a MASSIVE difference.

Lampard said he wouldn't move to another English club, when he signed for City.. he said he won't play against Chelsea. I can't remember Mourinho saying he wouldn't manage another football club ever again when he left, or maybe I missed that quote.

Not that Mourinho is comparable, Lampard is an icon here/personification of the club, Jose doesn't compare.. yet.

Besides, Lampard has a stronger connection to Chelsea than Mourinho.

Edit: Oh, that edit before I quoted.

[RoyalBlues 4,050]

Manchester City have extended Frank Lampard's loan deal from New York City FC.

The former Chelsea superstar - who scored against his old club in a 1-1 draw at the weekend - will now remain at the Etihad until February before beginning his MLS career.

By extending his loan stay with the Premier League champions beyond the original date of the end of 2014, Lampard will now potentially be able to face his old club once again: the two sides meet again in the league on January 31st.

Wooo, that's predictable from c*** Pelle. Bring it on, b****, we will serve you right at the Bridge.

[Fernando 6,585]

There is a MASSIVE difference.

Lampard said he wouldn't move to another English club, when he signed for City.. he said he won't play against Chelsea. I can't remember Mourinho saying he wouldn't manage another football club ever again when he left, or maybe I missed that quote.

Not that Mourinho is comparable, Lampard is an icon here/personification of the club, Jose doesn't compare.. yet.

Well he didn't move to another English club, he moved to the MLS.

It was not sure that City would do such a thing back then.

Now that we know, I bet you people will be more cautious about joining NYCFC.

But even if he was to moved to another club from the same league it makes no difference.

It was the same case with Batitusta. Man was an idol for Fiorentina, and where he moved to? Roma.

When he scored the goal against his beloved Fiorentina he cried.

So again not the first time and won't be the last.

Just that people like you want to make a big scene about everything.

Like that time you called Mourinho a traitor because you thought he was going to United....

[Thendo 1,088]

When does the mls season start? Wasn't he just supposed to stay til January and then join up with the New york city pre season? Seems very odd that he would stay with man city when he can train with New york? Cant understand why he would do that...

[Term-X 7,891]

Well he didn't move to another English club, he moved to the MLS.

It was not sure that City would do such a thing back then.

Now that we know, I bet you people will be more cautious about joining NYCFC.

But even if he he was to moved to another club from the same league, it was the same with Batitusta. Man was an idol for Fiorentina, and where he moved to? Roma.

When he scored the goal against his beloved Fiorentina, he cried.

So again, not the first time and won't be the last.

Just that people like you want to make a big scene about everything.

As that time you called Mourinho a traitor because you thought he was going to United....

So you are assuming Frank Lampard is an idiot then, NYC did not exist when he signed for them, he will have known EXACTLY what was going to happen.

Did Batistuta say he would never join another italian rival?, or italian club?, did he say he wouldn't play against Fiorentina?, if not.. then it's the opposite to the Lampard situation.

[RoyalBlues 4,050]

Who knows, if we or they going through at cup competitions, Chelsea vs City match might be rearranged

[Fernando 6,585]

So you are assuming Frank Lampard is an idiot then, NYC did not exist when he signed for them, he will have known EXACTLY what was going to happen.

Did Batitusta say he would never join another italian rival?, or italian club?, did he say he wouldn't play against Fiorentina?, if not.. then it's the opposite to the Lampard situation.

Batitusta joined Roma from Fiorentina.

Lampard joined NYCFC.

He is on loan to City, so he did not signed for City.

And yes, I don't think most people would have been cleared with the whole NYCFC to City connection.

Now that it's laid bare in front of our eyes we know.

[Term-X 7,891]

When does the mls season start? Wasn't he just supposed to stay til January and then join up with the New york city pre season? Seems very odd that he would stay with man city when he can train with New york? Cant understand why he would do that...

Because he wants to score against us at the Bridge, and with Pellegrino's hatred for Jose.. he'll probably start this time.

[RoyalBlues 4,050]

Hope we draw against City at home in cup competitions.

[Term-X 7,891]

Batitusta joined Roma from Fiorentina.

Lampard joined NYCFC.

He is on loan to City, so he did not signed for City.

And yes, I don't think most people would have been cleared with the whole NYCFC to City connection.

Now that it's laid bare in front of our eyes we know.

NYC did not exist, Lampard signed with Man-City corp, he's not an idiot.. he knows how to read contracts, he will have known the minute he signed the deal. And that doesn't excuse the fact he said he wouldn't play against us, when it was declared.

Completely different to the Batitusta situation, unless you have quotes and promises from him similar to what Lamps said.

[Fernando 6,585]

NYC did not exist, Lampard signed with Man-City corp, he's not an idiot.. he knows how to read contracts, he will have known the minute he signed the deal. And that doesn't excuse the fact he said he wouldn't play against us, when it was declared.

Completely different to the Batitusta situation, unless you have quotes and promises from him similar to what Lamps said.

That's your assumption, like you thought Mourinho was going to United....

[Thendo 1,088]

Because he wants to score against us at the Bridge, and with Pellegrino's hatred for Jose.. he'll probably start this time.

Would hope so as that would be beneficial for us, but would be silly by Pellegrini to do that only to try to annoy us.

But still don't understand this, as they will need to buy a new midfielder come january anyway, since Lamps is off in february.

[Term-X 7,891]

Jose looked genuinely gutted about the whole affair, when reporters were asking him about Lampard. Pellegrino knows where to stick the knife now, this is a psychological battle as well as it is football.