Frank Lampard loan spell extended, cynical?
Frank Lampard loan spell extended, cynical?
Author
Discussion

HarryW

Original Poster:

15,747 posts

289 months

Thursday 1st January 2015
quotequote all
At the beginning of the season more than a few eyebrows were raised when Frank Lampard was loaned to Man City from his 'new' US team having never turned up for training let alone kicked a ball for them. It was only during the U.S. closed Season and his loan was to expire on the 31st Dec cried those in defence and it wasn't a cynical attempt to bypass the financial Fair Play Rules.
It now appears his loan has been extended to cover the remainder of the PL season which will now be to the detriment of his new US club for 3 months........should the FA now investigate this and if confirmed as a ruse to bypass the FFP rules throw the book and start the process of stamping out cheque book football for good.

HarryW

Original Poster:

15,747 posts

289 months

Friday 2nd January 2015
quotequote all
Ok, only me and Arse Wenger think it stinks then....

Lost soul

8,712 posts

202 months

Friday 2nd January 2015
quotequote all
HarryW said:
Ok, only me and Arse Wenger think it stinks then....
He was never going to NYC was he hehe

BlackLabel

13,251 posts

143 months

Friday 2nd January 2015
quotequote all
I'm still surprised he went to city in the first place - you could understand him going back to Upton Park or another smaller EPL side but to play for City after spending 13 years with Chelsea is unfathomable.

Lost soul

8,712 posts

202 months

Friday 2nd January 2015
quotequote all
BlackLabel said:
I'm still surprised he went to city in the first place - you could understand him going back to Upton Park or another smaller EPL side but to play for City after spending 13 years with Chelsea is unfathomable.
Why to both points ?

Amirhussain

11,592 posts

183 months

Friday 2nd January 2015
quotequote all
Lost soul said:
BlackLabel said:
I'm still surprised he went to city in the first place - you could understand him going back to Upton Park or another smaller EPL side but to play for City after spending 13 years with Chelsea is unfathomable.
Why to both points ?
He did what he did at Chelsea. All time top scorer, won the league and domestic cups, and captained us twice in European finals with success. His still got some years left in him and too good a player to be warming the bench.

After all he has done for Chelsea and all the memories he has given us and the goals he has scored, he doesn't owe us anything.

Lost soul

8,712 posts

202 months

Friday 2nd January 2015
quotequote all
Amirhussain said:
Lost soul said:
BlackLabel said:
I'm still surprised he went to city in the first place - you could understand him going back to Upton Park or another smaller EPL side but to play for City after spending 13 years with Chelsea is unfathomable.
Why to both points ?
He did what he did at Chelsea. All time top scorer, won the league and domestic cups, and captained us twice in European finals with success. His still got some years left in him and too good a player to be warming the bench.

After all he has done for Chelsea and all the memories he has given us and the goals he has scored, he doesn't owe us anything.
Sure , but what I mean is why would he go to a smaller EPL team

Chelski let him go after all which I consider a blunder of Wengarian scale

amare32

2,419 posts

243 months

Saturday 3rd January 2015
quotequote all
It'll be interesting to see where Gerrard ends up in the U.S.

Am sure Gerrard will show he is the classier player not to leave his believed club only to be farm out back to an English rival.

Edited by amare32 on Saturday 3rd January 14:06

Amirhussain

11,592 posts

183 months

Saturday 3rd January 2015
quotequote all
amare32 said:
It'll be interesting to see where Gerrard ends up in the U.S.

Am sure Gerrard will show he is the classier player not to leave his believed club only to be farm out back to an English rival.

Edited by amare32 on Saturday 3rd January 14:06
  • Beloved
An I'm pretty certain that Gerrard handed in a transfer request in 2005. No doubt he would have ended up at Chelsea, if he hadn't received threats.

curlie467

7,650 posts

221 months

Saturday 3rd January 2015
quotequote all
Amirhussain said:
  • Beloved
An I'm pretty certain that Gerrard handed in a transfer request in 2005. No doubt he would have ended up at Chelsea, if he hadn't received threats.
Oh dear. If you are going to be pedantic then please ensure your reply is flawless.

stuartmmcfc

8,775 posts

212 months

Friday 9th January 2015
quotequote all
Looks like his loan spell never existed, he's been a City player all along smile

epom

13,800 posts

181 months

Friday 9th January 2015
quotequote all
Am I correct in saying that Chelsea didn't offer him a new contract? If so, then tough. He owes nothing to anyone, least of all those who call themselves Chelsea supporters.

pinchmeimdreamin

10,627 posts

238 months

Friday 9th January 2015
quotequote all
epom said:
Am I correct in saying that Chelsea didn't offer him a new contract? If so, then tough. He owes nothing to anyone, least of all those who call themselves Chelsea supporters.
I think we can all agree on that, its the fact Man city bought him by proxy to avoid FFP thats a little naughty.

Fittster

20,120 posts

233 months

Friday 9th January 2015
quotequote all
FFP exist purely allow those at the top to remain so ever more. The more that's done to undermine them the better.

aeropilot

39,090 posts

247 months

Friday 9th January 2015
quotequote all
pinchmeimdreamin said:
epom said:
Am I correct in saying that Chelsea didn't offer him a new contract? If so, then tough. He owes nothing to anyone, least of all those who call themselves Chelsea supporters.
I think we can all agree on that, its the fact Man city bought him by proxy to avoid FFP thats a little naughty.
If he was a free agent, then surely they didn't 'buy' him.....?

Wacky Racer

40,309 posts

267 months

Friday 9th January 2015
quotequote all
aeropilot said:
pinchmeimdreamin said:
epom said:
Am I correct in saying that Chelsea didn't offer him a new contract? If so, then tough. He owes nothing to anyone, least of all those who call themselves Chelsea supporters.
I think we can all agree on that, its the fact Man city bought him by proxy to avoid FFP thats a little naughty.
If he was a free agent, then surely they didn't 'buy' him.....?
This. He didn't cost City a penny...(other than his £190,000pw wages)

(According to reports)

stuartmmcfc

8,775 posts

212 months

Friday 9th January 2015
quotequote all
pinchmeimdreamin said:
I think we can all agree on that, its the fact Man city bought him by proxy to avoid FFP thats a little naughty.
Why was it by proxy?
Yesterday the Premier league said he was only registered to MCFC and no other club.

BraveSirRobin

845 posts

302 months

Friday 9th January 2015
quotequote all
Seems he only signed a precontract agreement with NY, so hasn't been on loan at all. All a bit fishy and engineered not to disrupt NY season ticket sales.

HarryW

Original Poster:

15,747 posts

289 months

Friday 9th January 2015
quotequote all
I've either misread the loan situation, along with 10million other PL followers, or its all a bit more fishy than an off fish pie left in the sun all day......

pinchmeimdreamin

10,627 posts

238 months

Saturday 10th January 2015
quotequote all
stuartmmcfc said:
Why was it by proxy?
Yesterday the Premier league said he was only registered to MCFC and no other club.
So the big press conference where he was announced as a NY player and Frank said he would be playing there this year was just a lie ?