Manchester confirms Lampard on at MCFC for full season

It doesn't matter when or if he comes and you have no idea if he will. Man City is now expressed interest in keeping him.
What matters is they lied about his contract status. That is a big deal. Business shouldn't be able to get by with that. That is the point. Not that he might play in July.

 

The "business" will "get by with that" specifically because he might/will play in MLS in July.

Please go read the article I just linked to.

 

Lets not get to bent out of shape about this. Man City spent Millions of dollars to expand into America. Spent more to get Lamperd. MCFC is still and always will be the mother ship they are short attacking players right now while going after UEFA, FA, and League cups. Compared to about the first third of the MLS season there should be no suprise what their choice is going to be. I think Garber made the right call by letting this slide and pocketing a favor. Garber has not got to where he is in life by getting the short end of the stick on deals.

 

Oh, come on. That's what BS and the internet is specifically for.

 

Oh I do not like it and hate City even more now. But lets not be suprised.

 

I don't entirely disagree, but I do keep coming back to the first impression thing. It's almost taken as a given that, with the obvious exceptions, the original MLS teams lag behind the MLS 2.0 teams off the field because the original teams are still paying the price for bad decisions by the league at the very beginning - about 20 years ago. So while Americans (people in general, I would say) do have short memories for scandals, in these critical early days potential NYCFC customers are forming what will be long-lasting opinions about the team. At least, that would seem to be the case if you buy into the wider argument that first impressions can last decades.

Of course, this is just one contributor to any first impressions, albeit a very highly publicized one. Still time for positive news.

 

Again, no one is surprised Man City was chosen over NYCFC. What we are all upset about is them lying about his contract status and claiming him as a NYCFC player to the public when he never signed a contract for them.
If you don't have a problem with teams lying about contract status, thats fine, but it is also fine for those of us that don't like it.

 

What does it matter if he ever plays for NYCFC? This isn't the argument and will never change that they misrepresented the facts to the fans.
It is fine that you are cool with them doing this but many of us aren't. It appears that we aren't going to change each others minds, but please stop using that he "might" play for them at some point in 2015 as a reason it is OK to misrepresent a players contract status.

 

That was a good article. I'm not sure I'm 100% with the conclusion, but I thought this part you quoted was key

Garber isn't in charge in the classic sense of "being in charge" and Garber doesn't have a boss in the classic sense of "having a boss" rather there are competing centers of power and realpolitik is exactly right.

By the way, Paulson's comments on NYCFC suggest that he's not going to go out of his way to criticize either Garber or NYCFC so I don't see a lot of backing for Garber if he takes a hard line.

 

Lampard playing the second half (or final ~60%) of the season in MLS would matter (to me at least) because it wouldn't make their "come see Lampard play in MLS next season" marketing claims from 2014 "fraudulent" statements or false advertising.

I would accept Abbott's response of a "distinction without a difference."

Probably. But you can't ask me to stop sharing my mind as you continue to share yours.

Why stop sharing my opinion on that? (Simply because it doesn't align with your opinion and perspective?)

I know my statements and perspective are not going to change your opinion. But you're free to share and discuss and analyze your own opinions and the opinions of other here. And everyone else is free to do the same on this forum.

 

As he phrased it, it's a non sequitur, and it looks like you're responding to opinions other than the ones being made.

To me, that's not really what you're doing. To me what you're doing is making quixotic demands for metaphysical proof of judgement calls, and expecting to draw the inference that the totally expected lack thereof constitutes some sort of evidence of something else-what, you don't specifically spell out, because it would set you up for the solipsism you use on others.

 

Nope. Not trying to do that. Just trying to participate in the discussion and offer my opinions and perspective.

But if my posts have given you that opinion, I apologize.

 

I thought so too. It's a good reminder that many major corporate boardrooms are Machiavellian, with shifting alliances and objectives. A good CEO must not only produce results on the balance sheet, but also be deft enough to retain support of a majority of his board members. The simple truth is that Garber doesn't work for the owners, he works for a majority of the owner's who will keep him in that chair.

So while MLS isn't unique, my own sense of this is that even in the murky world of boardroom politics the league's use of Calvinball as policy is extreme. And while this isn't likely to be the tipping point, if MLS doesn't reduce its reliance on seemingly making things up as it goes along to achieve desired outcomes (which is well catalogued in the article), I firmly believe that it's methods are eventually going to wear thin.

Simply put, the fan base is changing IMO. From the early days, I think many of us, fans, media members as well as owners, were so anxious that MLS succeed that we all were to some degree accepting that the "ends justified the means." Rules changes, allocation money, player movements, fudged attendance figures -- it was dismissed as simply pragmatic by many of us if MLS was to survive. That's why, Big Soccer has always posters (like me) who are "fans of the league" with no particular allegiance to any team, and many are unabashed Garber fans.

But more and more, I think new fans accept the survival of MLS as a given and their rooting interest is much more conventional -- "their" team. They are and will be less tolerant of MLS' reliance on Deus ex Machina if they believe their team has been disadvantaged. And, ultimately, there are simply going to be more of these fans than those who dismiss every strange result with "at least we have a league."

We just aren't there yet, and honestly I believe it will fall on the next commissioner to usher in more transparency. Until that happens, we'll have these pressure building events with increasing frequency as the league grows and new fans are introduced to MLS.

 

Well stated.

Although, Garber has been stating that "more transparency" can and should be a part of focus of the current collective bargaining ahead of the 2015 season.

Will be interesting to track the real results (if any) of those claims and efforts.

 

If you look back at this thread you'll see that for the first few days of this story @joehooligan0303 and I were in disagreement (extreme at times) but as more concrete information has come out I have to agree with the general point of this post. While I don't think the issue necessitates the hyperbole that has been thrown around by some there's no doubt that MLS and/or CFG tried to get away with pulling a fast one on this and got burned. It was a bad move by the league and their response hasn't rectified the situation.

 

Fair points.

And I'd respond that time itself very likely can/will be the response that helps to best rectify this situation (by letting Lampard get to NYC after whenever it is his commitments to MCFC end).

I don't favor that resolution or approach to rectification, but it is what it is.

I tend to be very (or overly) forgiving of the league/business as MLS makes mistakes and missteps as it grows. Others here, understandably so, are less forgiving or less willing to understand/accept MLS's approaches and decisions. This is all a part of the painful growth process still for the league -- and often times they sure do look like slow learners.

 

I think there are a lot of NYCFC fans that would rather him not come and that would be the best resolution for them. I think it is very likely if he comes he will not be received well by the fans. I have seen comments by fans suggesting this outside of BS too.

 

Yeah, but Tab the "time heals wounds" aphorism is just fortune cookie pablum. There is no iron law that says this is how it has to go. A completely coherent possibility is that seething resentment surfaces when Lampard does.

Lampard showing up in 5 months with nothing said about the matter between now and then ... well, hopefully there is some kind of act of contrition, empathy, or de-escalation by NYCFC towards its fan base on this specific issue in the interim. Maybe my Philly side is coming out, but things could get ugly on that day.

 

Certainly. But I do like to look back at the Beckham years in MLS. There was a love-hate-love roller-coaster there for the fans wrt that player. Results are what matters. But time is certainly needed.

I have no idea how this will wind up, but I suspect people (and fans in NYC specifically) could be feeling differently come July 2015, or Nov 2016 or whenever. I'm willing to look to the future and be less concerned with reacting (or over-reacting) to the news of the day/week.

 

I can tell you if I was a NYCFC fan I would already have my "screw you Man City" and "screw you Lampard" signs made and ready for opening day. Hopefully I could come up with some more clever phrases than that.

 

Again in the Beckham situation fans weren't lied to about his contract status and LA Galaxy didn't have a parent club involved. Very different situations.

 

Not different from the broad sense of Beckham extending a loan and the fans reacting to that news.

I think you're really getting bogged down in the details that many, many general fans and ticket-buyers will not actually care about.

 

I think you are not understanding that fans are upset about the details and upset about the parent/child club precedent this brings to mind.
Also with Beckham, he wasn't used as the face of the team for their inaugural game/season. That is a huge difference.

 

No, for the most part they are upset about the player not being present (yet). And they are upset that they thought he was going to be present in March, because they were misinformed or lied to or conditions changed or whatever.

Beyond that they don't care (or even know) about things like Abbott's contention that the agreement/contract items were distinctions without differences.

Once the player is present in NY, then fans will (very likely) tend to forget about the times/months he wasn't there, and the shenanigans and delay in bringing the player to their team.

Admittedly, that all changes if Lampard never plays in Yankee Stadium.

 

@joehooligan0303 and @tab5g, I think your first hundred posts in the thread were sufficient to get your positions across.