• Current Donation Goals

CFCnet Admin

Frank Lampard: Legend.

Recommended Posts

Chelsea should have come to an arrangement for Frank to continue on current wages for 6 months before transferring to NYC in Feb. He could of helped us in our campaign (instead of scoring goals against us), kept himself fit and then had the send off he deserved. I'm pretty sure he would have liked that.

This is not the benefit of hindsight, the moment I knew City owned that club alarm bells started ringing. If City want to keep him for the whole season they will. If they want to give him a permanent 2 year deal then they will. NYC will have to lump it. Pelligroany will be loving this. He will try and keep Frank just to annoy Jose. We have been shafted.

it wouldn't have worked. The whole rationale of NYC taking on Frank was the PR they could get during the WC when they really needed to get their name out there as a brand new club. They have been selling season tickets since July. And they took on David Villa at the same time.

The only question to be sorted was where SFL could be loaned to, and naturally 80% owner M City controlled this. But that does not mean they can keep him into the US season. Frank is bought with PR money and is key to the marketing of NYC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it wouldn't have worked. The whole rationale of NYC taking on Frank was the PR they could get during the WC when they really needed to get their name out there as a brand new club. They have been selling season tickets since July. And they took on David Villa at the same time.

The only question to be sorted was where SFL could be loaned to, and naturally 80% owner M City controlled this. But that does not mean they can keep him into the US season. Frank is bought with PR money and is key to the marketing of NYC.

So are you saying that if City are pushing for the title and maybe CL (long shot I know) and by January they have a depleted midfield due to injuries and Frank is fit and on top form, he will 100% still go to NYC? I'm not so sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So are you saying that if City are pushing for the title and maybe CL (long shot I know) and by January they have a depleted midfield due to injuries and Frank is fit and on top form, he will 100% still go to NYC? I'm not so sure.

Absolutely certain. He is a NYC PR buy. In anycase they might simply offer £10m and £100k a week for a decent PL player in January, just as we brought in Ba.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest   
Guest

Absolutely certain. He is a NYC PR buy

He is a non-FFP compliant teams dream purchase. I think it is very much on the cards he will extend his loan stint. Instead of City "simply offering £10m and £100k a week for a decent PL player in January" they can give this figure to NYC and keep Frank. Arse to the PR campaign, City call the shots on this in every way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He is a non-FFP compliant teams dream purchase. I think it is very much on the cards he will extend his loan stint. Instead of City "simply offering £10m and £100k a week for a decent PL player in January" they can give this figure to NYC and keep Frank. Arse to the PR campaign, City call the shots on this in every way.

Whilst that's true, as NYC is their franchise they'll want it to succeed. Having Frank (and Villa) as NYC's marquee singing is crucial to establishing that franchise in the US. I would wager the damage of having their star name, sign, but never turn out for them would be far more damaging to NYC (and as a consequence, City) than it would them having to promote a youngster or whatever to meeting their HG quotas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst that's true, as NYC is their franchise they'll want it to succeed. Having Frank (and Villa) as NYC's marquee singing is crucial to establishing that franchise in the US. I would wager the damage of having their star name, sign, but never turn out for them would be far more damaging to NYC (and as a consequence, City) than it would them having to promote a youngster or whatever to meeting their HG quotas

Yes - and of course while City hold 80%, it will still be their parent, the Abu Dabi investment group that will have taken and will take the key decisions. Frank is a vital NYC project on temporary loan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was sitting in a bar near my place when we beat Barca in 2012. I was talking to this Barcelona fan, and the subject of Lampard came up, he said to me,

"One of the finest central midfielders to play the game and the best English footballer I've ever seen."

High praise. I follow a lot of sports, and Lampard is an athlete everyone should respect.

One of my favorite Lampard goals was the one against Bayern in 2005. Where he chested it, turned, and hit it on the volley with his left foot. Incredible and a work of art, that was a goal. The technique involved, that was a goal that only the best can do. And Frank made it look easy.

We were privileged to have such a great player as Lampard. 11 million, when at his best, he'd break the transfer record.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Vinod   

Here I disagree. I feel sure he was. But given the massive PR NYC were getting during the WC over Lampard to brand new club, there is no way they could have allowed it to be spoilt by a Lampard to City story. They paid Lampard to boost seat sales for a brand new club. Man City own the club and would have been happy to comply with that. But at the same time City would have been able to block any loan move that they were not happy with.

Either City said he comes to us on loan full stop. Or they said, let's see what happens in the summer window, and we will let you know if we want him or if we can go to a club not our rival.

Does it even matter? No one is necessarily truthful all the time, their image notwithstanding. Lampard may have been on board with being loaned to City, that may even have been the determining factor; or alternatively the point would have come up after signing for NYC - We may never know all the facts of the case.

We believe what we want to believe depending on whether we want to feel comforted or miserable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Watching the game on Sunday, local pundit Mark Bosnich (for it is he!) made a comment that I found interesting. He was saying that Frank was definitely heading to Melbourne City to join up with Villa, but then a problem arose regarding the number of 'marquee' players MC were allowed to register by the FAA (or, something along those lines, anyway). Only then was a move to Manchester organized. I can't guarantee the accuracy of that of course, but Bozza is usually across what's happening in the A League.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it's true, in the A-League you can only register 1 foreign marquee player for a full season - which is Robert Koren

what they tried to do is sign him up for a guess stint marquee place, the A-League allows for 1 player to be allowed for up to 10 games as a guest player

David Villa was signed up initially, but City thought they could bend the rules in that league by getting 2 guest players instead of just 1

The Australian FA told em to get stuffed so Lamps was left with the choice between doing nothing till the next season of MLS or go back on loan to Man City

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now