Frank Lampard

[termninja 5,290]

If I had a choice to pick a football player I would like to be, it would be Lamps.

'nuff said.

193 and still counting baby!

[Styles 9,790]

They declined to go into detail but confirmed that Lampard's £150,000-a-week salary would not be slashed as a primary condition of any new deal.

I'm all for a one-year extension but he's got to be looking at a significant pay cut.

This could just be an effort to appease some of the fans though.

I can't see how they could justify giving a 35 year old nearly 8m.

[Hutcho 8,443]

I can't see how they could justify giving a 35 year old nearly 8m.

How do you justify giving torres more than 8 mil a year?

I know who i would rather pay it too. And does he look like a 34 year old... He has supreme fitness levels as we have seen this season with him sprinting back faster than david luiz in the last minute of a game... Ideally we shouldn't pay either of them 150k for obvious reasons, but it wouldn't bother me at all if he was getting paid that, as to have him stay here would be worth it for me.

[DH1988 1,214]

Literally I don't care just offer him a one year contract, cut his wages, 150k is ridiculous.

I'm ALL for keeping him as I think he is useful on/off the pitch however @ 150k!!

[The only place to be 11,313]

If the club want to pay him that, then he has earned it, we have more expensive people doing a hell of a lot less for the club. 150k is extreme, but if we sign him i will not really be too bothered about his wages. In my eyes he is super frankie, and exceptions can be made...

And in reply to inevitable responses: yes the club is more important than 1 player, but that 1 player is pretty darn special and if you got rid of someone like torres on his wage bill you would get your money back and we have thrown considerably more money on people who gives/has given this club far far less...

You pay people wages not because they've earned it, but because they will earn it. Other players might be on more and I expect you're talking about Torres because that's the example everyone uses, but we can't renegotiate his contract right now without him wanting to. We're fucked in that case.

With Lamps we can and there's no way he's worth £150,000 p/w anymore. We're having this conversation after a 5-0 win in which he came on at 4-1 and scored a penalty - I didn't see people quite so vocal after the QPR game.

Yes we would be lovely to get rid of Torres but let's look at it another way - with the £5 million we spend on Lamps in wages we could buy Luke Shaw from Southampton. That's the type of choice we have to make nowadays - you want to spend money on an old, bit-part player or try and invest in the future of the club?

How do you justify giving torres more than 8 mil a year?

I know who i would rather pay it too. And does he look like a 34 year old... He has supreme fitness levels as we have seen this season with him sprinting back faster than david luiz in the last minute of a game... Ideally we shouldn't pay either of them 150k for obvious reasons, but it wouldn't bother me at all if he was getting paid that, as to have him stay here would be worth it for me.

Torres contract cannot be renegotiated without his consent. It's a moot point. :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

[Styles 9,790]

How do you justify giving torres more than 8 mil a year?

I know who i would rather pay it too. And does he look like a 34 year old... He has supreme fitness levels as we have seen this season with him sprinting back faster than david luiz in the last minute of a game... Ideally we shouldn't pay either of them 150k for obvious reasons, but it wouldn't bother me at all if he was getting paid that, as to have him stay here would be worth it for me.

Torres couldn't justify an unpaid internship right now let alone 8m a year. But we're stuck with him because that contract has many more years to run. Tough break.

Our midfield needs sorting for the long-term and throwing 8m at a 35 year old isn't the best answer. We have a clear issue with our central midfield play. Time waits for no man.

[Hutcho 8,443]

You pay people wages not because they've earned it, but because they will earn it. Other players might be on more and I expect you're talking about Torres because that's the example everyone uses, but we can't renegotiate his contract right now without him wanting to. We're fucked in that case.

With Lamps we can and there's no way he's worth £150,000 p/w anymore. We're having this conversation after a 5-0 win in which he came on at 4-1 and scored a penalty - I didn't see people quite so vocal after the QPR game.

Yes we would be lovely to get rid of Torres but let's look at it another way - with the £5 million we spend on Lamps in wages we could buy Luke Shaw from Southampton. That's the type of choice we have to make nowadays - you want to spend money on an old, bit-part player or try and invest in the future of the club?

Torres contract cannot be renegotiated without his consent. It's a moot point. :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

I have always been vocal whatever the result in wanting to give lampard a new contract. And QPR game was hardly all on lampard, i think everyone went missing that game. I am not debating whether we should from a purely business like point of view pay lampard 150k a week. I am simply stating that i would love to see him given a contract so much that if he was to be given that it wouldn't bother me. I would just want him to stay, It is the wrong attitude from a business standpoint but i have an undying sense of loyalty to lampard because in my eyes he is the greatest and always will be so would just love him to stay.

[The only place to be 11,313]

I have always been vocal whatever the result in wanting to give lampard a new contract. And QPR game was hardly all on lampard, i think everyone went missing that game. I am not debating whether we should from a purely business like point of view pay lampard 150k a week. I am simply stating that i would love to see him given a contract so much that if he was to be given that it wouldn't bother me. I would just want him to stay, It is the wrong attitude from a business standpoint but i have an undying sense of loyalty to lampard because in my eyes he is the greatest and always will be so would just love him to stay.

I'd love him to stay - I'd also love him to be playing like he was 2 or 3 years ago.

Throwing big money at a player who isn't deserving of it is the opposite of what we're supposed to be doing and like any business, if you're spending it in one place you aren't spending it in another.

[Rmpr 8,977]

They declined to go into detail but confirmed that Lampard's £150,000-a-week salary would not be slashed as a primary condition of any new deal.

I'm all for a one-year extension but he's got to be looking at a significant pay cut.

This could just be an effort to appease some of the fans though.

Why would you knock on your boss' door and shout you accept a 50% pay-cut?

Lampard is playing quite, he is just waiting what comes to table. If it is a simple 150k extension, then awesome. However, I bet he would accept a 80k offer just to stay at the club.

Well, I dont know him nor Roman, so this is just me assuming things...

[The only place to be 11,313]

Why would you knock on your boss' door and shout you accept a 50% pay-cut?

Lampard is playing quite, he is just waiting what comes to table. If it is a simple 150k extension, then awesome. However, I bet he would accept a 80k offer just to stay at the club.

Well, I dont know him nor Roman, so this is just me assuming things...

I'm doubting what the club is saying. I haven't made a comment on Lampard's position.

[TorontoChelsea 4,064]

Who knows? Lots of rumours going round but we are not privy to what's really happening. I always assumed that Lampard would take a pay cut to sign a deal. He's going to be playing less, so he should get less money. From a footballing perspective, Frank is still plenty good enough to contribute on the pitch and it would be good public relations for the club to its fans as well.

[HRiver 1,512]

I`m sorry but giving him 2 years with the same wages is huge case of bottling it. Also if they have decided to give him that contract because he scored the fifth goal from a penalty that should have not have been given in the first place then its absolutely laughable.

I'm sorry, but do you even like Lamps? Or did you ever like him?

I'm not saying you should commend him all the time and come here and say "I fucking love you Frank, I'd suck your dick if I could", but you seem to disparage him every time you have the chance, and for a Chelsea fan it just doesn't seem right to me. Anyway, to each his own.

[chelseasun 13]

I pray he stays

[Kez 2,727]

Just seen his celebration mouthing I love you to the fans, it actually made me cry. We need to keep this man at the club, how can they even be considering not giving him a new contract? He still has so much to give the club.

[Rmpr 8,977]

Just seen his celebration mouthing I love you to the fans, it actually made me cry. We need to keep this man at the club, how can they even be considering not giving him a new contract? He still has so much to give the club.

I love you all, please.

Being serious now, I can't imagine how sad people will be when he retires or go away.

[Rubber bullets 1,183]

I'm sorry, but do you even like Lamps? Or did you ever like him?

I'm not saying you should commend him all the time and come here and say "I fucking love you Frank, I'd suck your dick if I could", but you seem to disparage him every time you have the chance, and for a Chelsea fan it just doesn't seem right to me. Anyway, to each his own.

Look, my final stance is a one year contract on reduced wages (£60,000-£80,000). But if what the Mail is reporting is true then its absolutely ridiculous. And with some fans yapping that we have to keep Lampard at all cost means they basically see him as bigger then the club, one of the biggest rules on how to not run a football club.

But what is absolutely pissing me of is the whole media coverage. Ever since the thought came that Chelsea may not keep Lampard they've been acting like the crime of the century has been committed. Its been wall to wall coverage on how Chelsea is wrong and how Chelsea is crazy, like we've been closing down 6 orphanages while burning money London Great Ormond street hospital. I mean for fucks sake the ITV highlights spent 60% discussing about him, when he only played 30 minutes and scored when the game wass well and truly over. When Madrid let Raul and Guti leave, was there anywhere near the amount of commotion in the Spanish media like today? I honestly wonder if Lampard is paying these journalist to print out this coverage. Circus does not begin how stupendous and overblown this coverage has been, more like a drug induced calamity.

[Heisenberg 1,824]

Look, my final stance is a one year contract on reduced wages (£60,000-£80,000). But if what the Mail is reporting is true then its absolutely ridiculous. And with some fans yapping that we have to keep Lampard at all cost means they basically see him as bigger then the club, one of the biggest rules on how to not run a football club.

But what is absolutely pissing me of is the whole media coverage. Ever since the thought came that Chelsea may not keep Lampard they've been acting like the crime of the century has been committed. Its been wall to wall coverage on how Chelsea is wrong and how Chelsea is crazy, like we've been closing down 6 orphanages while burning money London Great Ormond street hospital. I mean for fucks sake the ITV highlights spent 60% discussing about him, when he only played 30 minutes and scored when the game wass well and truly over. When Madrid let Raul and Guti leave, was there anywhere near the amount of commotion in the Spanish media like today? I honestly wonder if Lampard is paying these journalist to print out this coverage. Circus does not begin how stupendous and overblown this coverage has been, more like a drug induced calamity.

It is a crime.

[Rubber bullets 1,183]

It is a crime.

Then you basically have made him bigger then the club, a big no no (for any player) in my book.