Manchester confirms Lampard on at MCFC for full season

And as I said in the other thread, I found this to be a bad signing to begin with. And it just got even worse. Real dumb.

 

Oy vey - not a good look for the league or the club. Still funny, though.

 

Man City USA joke continues

 

Oh no, July. Crestfallen. Oh I mean, "Dark day for the league. The sky is falling. etc etc."

 

"Manchester City can confirm that it has extended Frank Lampard’s contract up to the end of Manchester City’s season, enabling his continued participation in both domestic and European campaigns."

They may have extended it (I'm hoping that MC is actually saying they have offered an extension), but does it mean that Lampard and MLS have given their permission and signed it?

 

yes, it is official, with quotes from NYCFC and MLS

http://www.espnfc.us/manchester-cit...r-city-until-end-of-seasondelay-move-to-nycfc



Reyna may have given a hint here in his quote but there is only one way to save some face and that is to spend some cash in January and get another big name player.

 

NYCFC has done a very good job with marketing, who they've hired, signed, etc. but no positive spin to this.

And this was very much orchestrated to announce this on New Year's Eve.

Agree

 

#FAIL

 

No single piece of news merits a concern that the "sky is falling" on MLS -- and I don't see anyone saying as much here -- but this still looks bad. Particularly in combination with other disappointing developments, like (1) the lack of any meaningful stadium plan that will leave the team playing in a baseball stadium indefinitely and (2) the kit design which, though cosmetic, validated the concern that this team would be more of an MCFC marketing gimmick than a distinct, NY-centric brand. That latter point, which the Lampard news reinforces, could be especially problematic in a place like New York, where people generally aren't attracted to second fiddle entertainment options.

More broadly, I'm not sure I understand why two soccer teams owned by the same person/entity are allowed to engage in transactions with each other. I guess there would have to be some sort of FIFA regulation against it, so maybe the question answers itself, but it seems to open the door to a lot of chicanery and conflict of interest.

 

Yikes!

I really did not expect NYCFC to start their franchise history in this manner.

 

That is ALL I've seen for the past month on this issue.

 

Steven Goff ‏@SoccerInsider
On flip side, Man City quick to grasp how MLS expanding playoffs have further undermined regular season. No hurry, Frank.

 

Waiting for NYCFC to kick a ball first before I start calling this team or the league a failure. Frank Lampard showing up a few months late isn't going to make or break this franchise.

 

NVM, I stand corrected.

I think the finger should be equally pointed at Lampard as much as MCFC.

 

Yeah I'll wait a few years (regardless of Lampard) to evaluate them fully. At this time going into the 2009 season, the Beckham experiment was a disaster. If NYC signs some other big name DP this year, many people will forget about this, even though it's still not a great look.

 

You know those Brits....always striving to keep up with the Jose's

 

Lampard is 36. Beckham was 32 when he signed with the Galaxy. Lampard was signed to make maximum impact in the team's inaugural year. Beckham was signed to make a long term impact, on the team and the league. There was time and space for Beckham to recover from a bad start. When Lampard comes in to the team, the "splash" will have long sunk back into the waters, and then he will be, at very best, a Divaio.

 

Hey guys, remember when Red Bull was the worst parent organization in New York?

 

He won't be as good as Di Vaio in MLS.