Frank Lampard

[killer1257 3,282]

Do we have a homegrown problem?Cole,Lamps and Daniel are leaving us.

[Jase 43,479]

I know that we all want him to stay for sentimental reasons, but when you come to think of it logically you have to say that the club has a very good point. Setting aside what he has done for the club in the past and just looking at what he can offer in the next 2 seasons it is really unjustifiable to be paying him 160k/wk when he's likely to miss more than half of our matches. I think whether he stays or not is completely in his hands, he can either take a huge pay cut and stay or continue with his current wages and move to the US or middle east.

Of course if they are gonna to stay, then Cole and Lampard have to take a wage cut but how serious is the club in offering them a contract extension? It's like they don't really bother that much.

[xPetrCechx 13,563]

[CHOULO19 24,332]

Of course if they are gonna to stay, then Cole and Lampard have to take a wage cut but how serious is the club in offering them a contract extension? It's like they don't really bother that much.

Of course the club will have contract talks with Frank and Ash. No reason for the club to not want them here on lower wages.

[Jase 43,479]

Of course the club will have contract talks with Frank and Ash. No reason for the club to not want them here on lower wages.

Who knows when the club is being managed by some clowns?

[The only place to be 11,313]

Who knows when the club is being managed by some clowns?

Really? I know it's easy/fashionable to have a go at the board but I disagree with that assessment entirely.

We're talking about Lamps leaving. Now he's a great player but there are 3 players who we might be looking at to replace him in the squad - Oscar, De Bruyne and McEachran.

Those are three young players with massive potential whose combined wages are less than Lampard's. Yes Lamps is a legend and yes he played well against Villa but where was his experience and leadership in the CWC?

The case for Cole is completely different because he's clearly still one of the best players in his position in the world, but the club has to stick by it's policy for players over the age of 30 otherwise what's the point?

[Melanicus 5,208]

Frank Lampard was informed before the Aston Villa game to find another club in the January transfer window.

[Term-X 7,891]

It's hard not to be sentimental when it comes to Lampard, he is the greatest Chelsea player ever, and that's speaking objectively. I'd love him to accept that one year extension and have a similar role as the two United legends enjoy under Ferguson. Unlikely as it is..

[Styles 9,790]

I would love for Lampard to stay but in the age of Financial Fair Play it's impossible that a soon to be 35 year old can get his wages on a 2 or even 3 year deal. I doubt Lampard is willing to accept significantly reduced wages on a one year deal.

[Styles 9,790]

As for the story put out by The Sun it's absolute bullshit designed to provoke the Chelsea fans. Please don't buy into that crap.

[TorontoChelsea 4,064]

It's hard not to be sentimental when it comes to Lampard, he is the greatest Chelsea player ever, and that's speaking objectively. I'd love him to accept that one year extension and have a similar role as the two United legends enjoy under Ferguson. Unlikely as it is..

Giggs is five years older than Lampard and Scholes is four years older. When they were Lampard's age, they were playing 35-45 games a year. Lampard is not the player he was a few years ago, but he's certainly capable of helping Chelsea out for a few more years. I am not privy to wage demands or anything like that so can't comment on the business end of it (which is rather important) but this sort of thing won't help the club's image (which has already taken a beating the past year). You see the respect that clubs like Barcelona and ManU have for their older players. It's customary and respectful in football clubs to allow their greats to stay part of the squad as they age (look at Italy- Javier Zanetti is 39, Totti is 36, Di Natale is 36, Del Piero just retired this year at 38, etc...). That doesn't mean they have too play the same role or anything, just that's mutually beneficial for clubs and players to do this. Ruthlessness is not an attractive quality in a person or in a club.

[The only place to be 11,313]

For every Giggs and Scholes, there's a Bruce, Keane, Schmiechel, Irwin or Hughes.

The reason Scholes came out of retirement is because United didn't replace him, whereas we've got a crop of youngsters looking to break through. Out of all of our older players (Terry, Cole, Cech) he's the one who is less likely to play 30 games a season and the one we have most replacements for.

There's a fine line between being respectful of out history and being slaves to it.

[chelseathebest 150]

He is the best player to have ever pulled on a Chelsea jersey & it's about time that you showed a true blue legend some fucking respect.

Amen to that.

[Madmax 9,219]

I'm more sentimental than most when it comes to Lampard but you can see the point about him not being value for money anymore. It's a business at the end of the day and it's no surprise Chelsea are being ruthless, living legend or not.

[Liquidator 5,176]

Really? I know it's easy/fashionable to have a go at the board but I disagree with that assessment entirely.

We're talking about Lamps leaving. Now he's a great player but there are 3 players who we might be looking at to replace him in the squad - Oscar, De Bruyne and McEachran.

Those are three young players with massive potential whose combined wages are less than Lampard's. Yes Lamps is a legend and yes he played well against Villa but where was his experience and leadership in the CWC?

The case for Cole is completely different because he's clearly still one of the best players in his position in the world, but the club has to stick by it's policy for players over the age of 30 otherwise what's the point?

So you think that McEachran and De Bruyne will return from their loans and instantly be 2 midfielders good enough to come up against top level teams every week? yes Lampard isn't what he was but he offers a great deal of experience- something De Bruyne and McEachran do not. If Lampard leaves we will be left with quite an inexperienced midfield.

At the start of next season, should we not sign anyone else our midfield would be this old:

Romeu 21

Ramires 26

Mata 25

Oscar 21

Mikel 26

Moses 22

Hazard 22

Marin 24

Piazon 19

De Bruyne 22

McEachran 20

(Essien 30 and Benayoun 33 the fact that they are on loan may mean that they will leave this Summer)

Not including Essien and Benayoun, the average age of that midfield is 22, if you take out Piazon it is 22.9. If you take out Piazon and add in Lampard it would be 24. Compare that with other clubs Barcelona (24), Real Madrid (25), Man U (28), Man City (29). It is clear that our midfield is not old enough to compete with these teams.

With Cole, what is the problem if we break our over 30's policy? If other players then want a contract more than 2 years and are over the age of 30 we don't have to offer them one

[The only place to be 11,313]

So you think that McEachran and De Bruyne will return from their loans and instantly be 2 midfielders good enough to come up against top level teams every week?

No. But I don't know if Lampard is 'good enough to come up against top level teams every week' so I don't necessarily agree with the premise of your point.

It is clear that our midfield is not old enough to compete with these teams.

Not old enough? If Luiz and Mikel are holding then that's two players about 26. Mata will be 25 and then you have wingers who are about 22. They also have the benefit of being pretty fucking talented and signing Stanley Matthews's corpse to bump up the average age won't change that in the slightest.

With Cole, what is the problem if we break our over 30's policy? If other players then want a contract more than 2 years and are over the age of 30 we don't have to offer them one

The problem with breaking a policy 'just once' is that you tend to break it 'just once' over and over again. Once you've established precedent then it becomes meaningless.

Let's just look at this in plain terms. We made a profit of about £1 million last year. Signing Lampard on a new contract where he earns 60% of his current wage would cost us roughly £5 million p/a. That is not an amount you spend to indulge a sense of nostalgia.

Let's build a statue to the guy if you want to memorialise him. It doesn't even count towards FFP.

[Henrique 9,133]

Lampard staying would be a good thingm but I dont see any problem if he leaves. Well, Italy example doesnt matter here, all these players are still in top clubs not because they are legends, but because the clubs dont have the money, so its better for them to stick with the old guard than going to market and buying new players.

Lampard has one of the highest wages in the club, and he cant get the same amount of money if he is going to be a good squad player, as it seems.

[Manuf 1,448]

Ballack wanted to take a cut and they dumped him anyway.