Frank Lampard to NYC FC

It depends which club is paying his wages; if City have taken on all of his wages, then surely it's not a FFP dodge?
 
Assuming Yaya Toure plays further forward with Fernando and Fernandinho holding, who (not including Lampard) would be cover in those positions?

For me it seems sensible to sign him but I'm surprised they didn't try to get him for the entire season if they were interested in him.
 
That'sHernandez said:
It depends which club is paying his wages; if City have taken on all of his wages, then surely it's not a FFP dodge?
Click to expand...

What if New York pay his wages but Etihad pay that money to New York in a small sponsorship deal?
 
Irish-Red-7 said:
Right.. Citys squad is reduced by the 1 if the homegrown quota isn't met, so with the addition of Lampard.. It mets the quota and provides a player if you get what im saying..
Click to expand...

But we could just sign an English player if it was that important? You're making out as if there is a rule stopping us signing an English player and this was the only to do it.
 
Empire said:
What if New York pay his wages but Etihad pay that money to New York in a small sponsorship deal?
Click to expand...

Well aren't City and New York owned by the same trading company? They wouldn't have to do that, would they? I don't really know the ins and outs but if that were happening, it sounds a little dodgy.
 
Empire said:
Assuming Yaya Toure plays further forward with Fernando and Fernandinho holding, who (not including Lampard) would be cover in those positions?

For me it seems sensible to sign him but I'm surprised they didn't try to get him for the entire season if they were interested in him.
Click to expand...

NYCFC will be competing in the MLS before the end of the season I think. I think Lampard has opted to play a few games in England as opposed to moving to Australia for 6 months only to then pack his bags again for New York.
 
People need to remember New York Yankees also part own NYCFC. It is a serious club. It isn't some just some dark sinister plot by City to dodge FFP. The Lampard situation is a one-off because the NYCFC is not yet up and running; once they are, their will be no more loan deals at the beginning of the season.
 
BobbyManc said:
But we could just sign an English player if it was that important? You're making out as if there is a rule stopping us signing an English player and this was the only to do it.
Click to expand...

Its clever really, like yous are going on four fronts so will need the full squad.. An Englishman fits the rules so signing Lampard on loan who in my opinion could still contribute is smart rather than a Sinclair type signing.
 
BobbyManc said:
People need to remember New York Yankees also part own NYCFC. It is a serious club. It isn't some just some dark sinister plot by City to dodge FFP. The Lampard situation is a one-off because the NYCFC is not yet up and running; once they are, their will be no more loan deals at the beginning of the season.
Click to expand...

So it's just coincidence that this comes after the sanction by UEFA? I'd guess Fat Frank is there for the CL squad on a heavily discounted wage bill.
 
That'sHernandez said:
Well aren't City and New York owned by the same trading company? They wouldn't have to do that, would they? I don't really know the ins and outs but if that were happening, it sounds a little dodgy.
Click to expand...

You are right, they are.

New York will likely just pay his wages.

That also could mean should they have horrific bad luck up top then New York could sign Eto'o and loan him to City. Although I'm sure the player will need to be back for the start of MLS.

I think their owners are used to doing some pretty immoral things so I can see them going to great lengths to avoid FFP. This will force the Glazers and Abromovich to find their own ways around it, once again Wenger will be left disappointed.
 
Last edited:
Empire said:
You are right, they are.

New York will likely just pay his wages.

That also could mean should they have horrific bad luck up top then New York could sign Eto'o and loan him to City. Although I'm sure the player will need to be back for the start of MLS.
Click to expand...

Thinking on it, it would all have to look legitimate on both clubs' books so this probably is purely just a fitness thing for Fat Frank.
 
How does this work? Imagine Nycffsfc buys a player, and just loans out a player to MCFC for 5 years with NYCFC paying the wages, does that circumvent FFP?
 
Shane88 said:
Would Chelsea fans be annoyed by this?
Click to expand...

If he starts every game for them and bangs in a goal against us, revealing a Uwe Rosler tattoo as he runs the length of the pitch to celebrate in front of the traveling Chelsea fans, the fat bastard can feck himself.

If he is just training with them and plays a few minutes, I don't mind, he was always going to go on loan somewhere (I thought Australia) to get his fitness up.

It'll be odd to see him in a Man City shirt though.
 
BobbyManc said:
Same applies to every big team. Players follow money and success. Don't trick yourself into thinking United's players are any different.
Click to expand...
I am not. As you can read from my post this doesn't apply to very few players. Don't go all defensive for no reason just because City's name is sprinkled in there.

Some United players are different. They go abroad. Schmeichel said that he would never have joined City if they were in any way competing with United. That's different. No glorious money or titles involved. Just a regular place in a PL lineup.

You think it's the same thing that Terry joins City like it is if Oscar does? There's no difference between the two?
 
TheMuffer said:
You are talking ...no..lets rephrase that..speculating out of your 'arris.
Frank Lampard has signed for a Man City run team in USA. He needs to keep fit and possibly match fit before the new season starts next year.
And most Chelsea supporters (of which I am one) just wish him well in whatever he does. There is no problem here.
Too me, he is acting highly professional by wanting to keep his fitness up and train at the highest level with a top club. If he gets game time then its a bonus
Also, on a personal level for him it means he and Miss Bleakley can hang around in Uk a bit longer and be with his kids.
Click to expand...
Dude. If all he does is training he could do that with Chelsea without being under contract. That isn't a problem. Beckham and Henry have done it a lot. Beckham even trained with Arsenal because it was closer to where he was staying. If he's signing with them on loan, that means he's going to play. And compete with Chelsea. It's the whole season. Not just a few months.

Villa went to Australia. Where's the affiliation there?
 
Snow said:
Dude. If all he does is training he could do that with Chelsea without being under contract. That isn't a problem. Beckham and Henry have done it a lot. Beckham even trained with Arsenal because it was closer to where he was staying. If he's signing with them on loan, that means he's going to play. And compete with Chelsea. It's the whole season. Not just a few months.

Villa went to Australia. Where's the affiliation there?
Click to expand...
Its training and getting match fit by getting a game or 2...I cannot see the problem. Its only until January when he has to rejoin NYC for their pre season.
Lampard puts his home life at the top of the list....why should he jeopordise that by going to Oz at this stage of his life.
City own Melbourne fc as well....there is the affiliation.....
 
Last edited:
That'sHernandez said:
So it's just coincidence that this comes after the sanction by UEFA? I'd guess Fat Frank is there for the CL squad on a heavily discounted wage bill.
Click to expand...

NYCFC was set up before our UEFA sanctions, why doesn't it make sense to keep Lampard fit and playing in the City squad while the MLS spends half a year getting up and running - I don't see how FFP is a driving factor here, it's hardly like Lampard is going to improve our side.
 
Smart by the City lot, a wise move, they have good advisors. I'd imagine it's a one off, City don't strike me as the type to try everything to get around FFP. They've won a couple of titles now and people are saying it was all bought which is 100% true but they have aspirations to be more than that and this would be extremely transparent in terms of being an honorable winning side.

I hate them with a passion, almost more than Liverpool, almost but them having Lampard on loan is not that big a deal. He was hardly ripping trees up last season and banging them in for fun. He'll probably play a few smaller games and if they need help in the CL he'll jump in.

We shouldn't be worried our whole squad is having far less games than City and we should be beating them with or without lamps helping them out.
 
Manchester Dan said:
NYCFC was set up before our UEFA sanctions, why doesn't it make sense to keep Lampard fit and playing in the City squad while the MLS spends half a year getting up and running - I don't see how FFP is a driving factor here, it's hardly like Lampard is going to improve our side.
Click to expand...

If you see my later post, I said I don't see how this could be anything other than a fitness thing for Lampard.
 
LennonNL said:
I'd like to know this too... imagine Ferdinand/Vidic going to Arsenal or Chelsea (similar rivalry?) for a year!
Click to expand...

Well I think our rivalries with Chelsea and Arsenal are bigger but in any case I dont imagine they're pleased with Lampard going to City.
 
Mali_Zeus said:
Well I think our rivalries with Chelsea and Arsenal are bigger but in any case I dont imagine they're pleased with Lampard going to City.
Click to expand...
It's only for 7 months, and doubt he'd even play much except for the odd Cup game or as a sub. Bet Chelsea fans wouldn't mind if he popped up with a goal against the likes of us, Liverpool, or Arsenal. Be really surprised if he played against Chelsea.
 
Suus said:
Hes a plonker
Click to expand...
Great insight
Mali_Zeus said:
Well I think our rivalries with Chelsea and Arsenal are bigger but in any case I dont imagine they're pleased with Lampard going to City.
Click to expand...
no problems at all....it would be weird but he deserves anything he can get. Its only until mid January so he will be keeping fit.
And at the end of the day, they are his employers so he goes where he is told
 
TheMuffer said:
Great insight

no problems at all....it would be weird but he deserves anything he can get. Its only until mid January so he will be keeping fit.
And at the end of the day, they are his employers so he goes where he is told
Click to expand...
It was. Truly.

Hes leaving for a title chasing rival and although he owes Chelsea no loyalty i kinda expected he wud show it.

And ever since he signed for NYFC it was obvi he wud loan himselg for City.

Furthermode City are tards as he will block younger players chance due to his wealth of experience.
 
Suus said:
It was. Truly.

Hes leaving for a title chasing rival and although he owes Chelsea no loyalty i kinda expected he wud show it.

And ever since he signed for NYFC it was obvi he wud loan himselg for City.

Furthermode City are tards as he will block younger players chance due to his wealth of experience.
Click to expand...

never in the history of this thread has so much shoite been spoken in so few illiterate words
 
It's going to be weird to see him in a City shirt. So much for the "I'll never play for another Premier League team against Chelsea".
 


Just on this subject, I personally think it is wrong that he's reportedly asked for this, if true (it's not been confirmed that it actually is yet).

If he's prepared to join a club in this league, he should be prepared to play in any game. Otherwise he should have gone to a league where he'd have no chance of playing Chelsea. I just think he shouldn't be able to pick and choose his games. He's a professional footballer.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.