Frank Lampard

[OhForAGreavsie 5,892]

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.

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.

[CHOULO19 24,332]

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.

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?

[OhForAGreavsie 5,892]

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?

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.

[CHOULO19 24,332]

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.

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

[OhForAGreavsie 5,892]

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

[zolayes 14,489]

TIME to call him a NON BLUE or the wrong shade of BLUE

[manpe 10,861]

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.

NYC may have given their blessing to the contract extension, but was there any mention of a loan? I just quickly searched for the article you're talking about (link) and did Ctrl+F "loan" but nothing came up. I didn't read it fully but a quick skim of the article is pretty much a recycled story about Lampard extending his stay there, with New York's (aka City's playtoy) blessing.

As if a loan wasn't bad enough, it gets clearer that he is actually a full-time player for Manchester City. And the fact that he together with City schemed and conned around that deal this way is the last straw. I now want concrete evidence that this is a loan, otherwise I'm done.

[iseah100 5,612]

So what about Villa?

[manpe 10,861]

And I know that essentially it doesn't make a difference, loan or not - he still kicks the ball for Manchester City either way. It's just the way our would-have-been all-time great has handled this, how it has destroyed the fans. I (don't) hope he finds as many fans at the Etihad, because if all of this gets exposed, he won't have many here.

PS I'm saying all of this in assumption that BBC and New York Times are correct.

Addendum: The "break clause" was an insurance for City in case he sucks so they can deport him to MLS to at least earn them some cash. Maybe that's why Lamps has looked so invigorated - he's playing for something.

[CHOULO19 24,332]

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

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".

[We Hate Scouse 10,286]

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 you're on loan with a club you will still sign a loan contract with them.

It's difficult to know exactly what has gone on and I doubt we ever will. There's no need for any club to publicly release any information and the conspiracies will continue unfortunately.

[CHOULO19 24,332]

When you're on loan with a club you will still sign a loan contract with them.

It's difficult to know exactly what has gone on and I doubt we ever will. There's no need for any club to publicly release any information and the conspiracies will continue unfortunately.

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.

[CHOULO19 24,332]

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

[OhForAGreavsie 5,892]

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.

[The Skipper 20,593]

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'll hopefully be at that City game. I definitely won't boo him, but I doubt highly I'll be joining in with the Super Frank chants because frankly, I wasn't even that bothered about the loan initially but the fact that he tried to be cute with it and tried to dress it up as a loan from the MLS, when now reputable sources are claiming he actually just signed for City straight and that the NYCFC presentation was pretty much a facade... I'll just stay silent.

This guy was the biggest CFC hero by far, but IMO he's traded that away for some more time at the top. Worth it? I don't think so.

[xPetrCechx 13,563]

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

So he deliberately signed for city.... all the new york deal was just a show?... great.

[xPetrCechx 13,563]

So lamps just asked NY to Sign for them (verbal agreement), so chelsea fans will be ok with him, and just sign for city as a free agent for the whole season?...
and if something will go wrong he will use the clause to get out and still be ok with chelsea fans.

[OneMoSalah 8,778]

In all honesty loan deal or not who gives a fuck I've said it from day one he had the chance to go to Man City and he did. Our club's top scorer, a Chelsea legend, honestly why would you do that? Will Gerrard do it to Liverpool? No. Did Giggs and Scholes do it at United? No. Loyalty is a two way street. He wasn't a one club man obviously but still he tainted his legacy with that move in my eyes.

When City come to the Bridge, if fans want to boo him they have every right to in my opinion after him going to City on loan or even on some disguised permanent deal. If he isn't even on loan it is a very cowardly move on his behalf to 'pretend' to be on loan from one club to one of your former clubs direct competitors, to try and preserve a relationship with a fanbase or whatever. Absolutely pathetic and if people want to boo him for that then they should go ahead because its ridiculous but I'm sure some people on this forum will be annoyed for me even saying that and I'll be told to go and support some other team or something but it was Lampard who said yes to go to City, despite having been a Chelsea player for how ever many years and in reality had achieved ultimately everything here.

Should have taken a leaf out of Ashley Cole's book, who did it the right way in my eyes.