Frank Lampard

[Fernando 6,374]

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 5,773]

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 10,855]

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 21,681]

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 5,773]

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 5,773]

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 10,855]

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 5,773]

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.

[OhForAGreavsie 5,773]

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 5,773]

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.