Frank Lampard

[LAM09 6,750]

I would love to really know who was a fault for him leaving us, as there are several rumours around. Either way, it's so hard seeing him contribute to City's title challenge.

[Term-X 7,891]

Really buddy.

At that point in time, he had earned the benefit of the doubt.. especially after all the quotes.

There was never an agenda against Lamps, he was a hero of mine, I just react to actions and intentions in an objective way.

[Stats 7,056]

My friend why are you getting all personal and emotional for? Like you've said and to take your own quote, but fixed. "It's Chelsea FC and not Lampard FC" We were already 1-0 up, to think that we would have lost the game at 1-0 up because Drogba was going to take the pk, that would or would have not given us a 2-0 lead is ludicrous. Obviously you must must have been a newby Chelsea fan. 1-0 Chelsea lead back in the day was a guaranteed win. There was no shaking for any true Chelsea fan if we came up 1-0 in the first minute of the game and had to play and defend that lead for 89 minutes. Enough said and end of story.

Please don't doubt my credibility as a Chelsea fan. I have been supporting them long about that. I am not getting personal and apologize if you feel that way but you said I was disrespecting a Chelsea legend which annoyed me. A 1-0 Chelsea lead is never or has been guaranteed. We just were very effective at not losing the lead. Ask the majority of people on here please if in that situation who they would want to take the penalty. Don't patronize me please about that 'any true Chelsea' fan rubbish. Now that is trying to get personal isn't it? Who are you to tell me or any other Chelsea fans how they should emotionally respond during a game. Don't go there please. You are player over club. I am club over player. Fair?

But you know what let's create this poll and see what people think actually. Good idea. The poll is up to discuss mate.

http://forum.talkchelsea.net/topic/19672-who-takes-the-penalty-hazard-or-costa/#entry1034886

[MichaelDance 552]

My 2 cents on the situation.

In august, I already made the comment that lampard signing for NYCFC was essentially the same as signing for Man City. People back than were too naive to think they were 2 separate entities, when in reality they were the same thing. NYCFC could care less if Lampard signed another loan and stayed with City, since they are owned by the same freaking owners, wear the same colors and even have the same exact kits...

However, i don't really take offense to his actions. Lampard is a professional football player, not the son of Chelsea. People need to understand that.

Maybe because I'm not from England, I dont really take huge offense to it, however, Chelsea essentially got Cesc as his replacement, which is 10000x better and allowed the team overall to improve.

BTW, this is NYCFC kit.....

Technically not the same club.

City Football Group (80%)

Yankee Global Enterprises (20%)

City still has to have YGE's approval, even though City own the most shares. But one is in America under the MLS and Man City is in the PL which is governed highly by the FA who are the strictest board ever. Players get fined for outside work stuff like they would on the pitch. They have the FFP which City should be fined by for finding a loophole in their transfer system.

[Fernando 6,463]

Technically not the same club.

City Football Group (80%)

Yankee Global Enterprises (20%)

City still has to have YGE's approval, even though City own the most shares. But one is in America under the MLS and Man City is in the PL which is governed highly by the FA who are the strictest board ever. Players get fined for outside work stuff like they would on the pitch. They have the FFP which City should be fined by for finding a loophole in their transfer system.

Ridicules, why would they get fined for finding a loophole?

If anything it just shows that FFP needs some amendments.

As is with any starting regulation it never is perfect and will be improvise over time.

City have done everything legal, but if UEFA cares about this issue they will amend their FFP regulations on such issues.

If not, then City will use it to their advantage.

So the balls are in UEFA courts really.

[MichaelDance 552]

Ridicules, why would they get fined for finding a loophole?

If anything it just shows that FFP needs some amendments.

As is with any starting regulation it never is perfect and will be improvise over time.

City have done everything legal, but if UEFA cares about this issue they will amend their FFP regulations on such issues.

If not, then City will use it to their advantage.

So the balls are in UEFA courts really.

So all we need is a foreign club owned by Chelsea and we can just buy players there and loan them to us.

[OhForAGreavsie 5,892]

Technically not the same club.

City Football Group (80%)

Yankee Global Enterprises (20%)

City still has to have YGE's approval, even though City own the most shares. But one is in America under the MLS and Man City is in the PL which is governed highly by the FA who are the strictest board ever. Players get fined for outside work stuff like they would on the pitch. They have the FFP which City should be fined by for finding a loophole in their transfer system.

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.

[CHOULO19 24,332]

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.

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.

[manpe 10,861]

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.

Has it actually been confirmed? I know there are speculations, but could provide a trustworthy source?

[CHOULO19 24,332]

Has it actually been confirmed? I know there are speculations, but could provide a trustworthy source?

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

"Lampard 'signed' for New York City FC in July but with the new MLS season not starting until March, he joined Manchester City - who part-own New York City - until January. Crucially, this was not a loan deal but a short-term contract signed as a free agent. It is understood the contract was for the entire season, with a break clause that was agreed would be activated at midnight on 31 December.

City needed that break clause removed if Lampard was to remain with them, which happened on Wednesday."

http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/30647043

[Tomo 21,733]

Has it actually been confirmed? I know there are speculations, but could provide a trustworthy source?

I read somewhere if it was a loan City would have had to re register meaning he couldn't have played vs Sunderland.

But because it was a contract he could just extend like that and carry on as normal.

[OhForAGreavsie 5,892]

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.

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.

[OhForAGreavsie 5,892]

I read somewhere if it was a loan City would have had to re register meaning he couldn't have played vs Sunderland.

But because it was a contract he could just extend like that and carry on as normal.

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.

[manpe 10,861]

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

Thanks. And also New York Times:

Lampard’s decision to stay in England also confirmed that he was never technically an M.L.S. player, even though New York City F.C.’s news release announcing his signing said Lampard “had signed a two-year contract which starts Aug. 1.”

But Lampard’s salary did not appear in a list distributed by the M.L.S. players union this fall — in Major League Soccer, the league owns all player contracts — even though several of his teammates’ did. And in announcing that Lampard would stay through the end of the Premier League season, Manchester City said that it had “extended” his deal.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/02/sports/soccer/frank-lampard-lifts-manchester-city-as-fans-in-new-york-fume.html?_r=0

[CHOULO19 24,332]

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.

BBC report announcing loan at Man City extended.

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:

"Lampard 'signed' for New York City FC in July but with the new MLS season not starting until March, he joined Manchester City - who part-own New York City - until January. Crucially, this was not a loan deal but a short-term contract signed as a free agent. It is understood the contract was for the entire season, with a break clause that was agreed would be activated at midnight on 31 December.

City needed that break clause removed if Lampard was to remain with them, which happened on Wednesday."

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.

[CHOULO19 24,332]

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.

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:

It is understood the contract was for the entire season, with a break clause that was agreed would be activated at midnight on 31 December.

City needed that break clause removed if Lampard was to remain with them, which happened on Wednesday."

[OhForAGreavsie 5,892]

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.

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.

[CHOULO19 24,332]

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.

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.