Manchester confirms Lampard on at MCFC for full season

Wow. What a disaster.

So much for Don's $100m Flagship Franchise. At this point, they're looking to be everything I feared they'd be.

Has anyone checked CFG's staff list for a J. Vergara....?

 

"A league statement said: “Frank Lampard is registered as a Manchester City player until the end of the 2014-15 season. The Premier League has sought and received assurances from Manchester City that there is no agreement in place between the club or City Football Group with New York City FC relating to the player.”

http://www.theguardian.com/football...city-premier-league-response-new-york-city-fc

Yeah, who would ever have thought otherwise?




No, really, that background could have been a mistake. A crude photoshop. Why would anyone even think there was an agreement with NYCFC without some indication from Lampard himself?




Well, ok, but it's not like it was advertised or anything!



Well . . .

 

And why would anyone doubt MLS on this, eh?

 

But there's an explicit statement from Lampard in The Mirror on September 25, 2014 saying he was contracted to start at the beginning of January with NYCFC but had been loaned to MCFC. Surely he wouldn't have been so utterly wrong on that point, would he? Given all the explicit statements from all the parties involved that Lampard had signed with NYCFC and loaned to MCFC, I just find this entire situation baffling - I'm gobsmacked even .

So the Premier League sought and received assurances that there is no agreement with NYCFC. Are they taking their word for it? Has anyone actually read the original contract (assuming it still exists)? Doesn't anyone have a copy of it, I mean MLS did sign it, right?

Deep down I still feel that MLS is being strong-armed by CFG and won't fight back because they've made a deal with the proverbial devil and are now paying the consequences.

 

EPL is fine with there being no contractual agreement outside of what the player has with MCFC. But if he does have a "CFG contract" for 24 months currently, that sure does look like some kind of 3rd party ownership. Maybe it is a "CFG-held option year"?

MLS is fine with their being some type of agreement or understanding.

Still not certain why Lampard couldn't or wouldn't sign some pre-contract with MLS this month for a July "free transfer," if his MCFC contract is indeed set to expire in June.

 

This third party thing should prove interesting.

 

My god give it a rest. You don't need to spin every comment made by some official into some positive for MLS.

 

This is just ridiculous. Novel approach by the agent.

LampArd agent says he never signed for NYC cos they didn't exist then. But will fulfil agreement to play there from July. Now MC's player.

— Ian Darke (@IanDarke) January 8, 2015

 

Didn't think I was doing that.

Didn't know that analysis wasn't allowed here, or that there was some limit on responding to new news or quotes or updates.

Not sure how pointing out that MLS and CFG are similar in the "entity-holding contract" bit is a positive for MLS, here.

 

Someone could point out that NYCFC existed (or MLS did) at the time for Villa to sign with and start getting paid in 2014.

Encouraging to read his agent say the player will be in MLS in July.

Interesting that he says an agreement is in place, contrary to what CFG is telling EPL.

 

I doubt he is coming.

First it was: For sure Frank Lampard is a NY player and will start there January 1.

Then that morphed into Pelligrini saying that maybe Lampard should extend the loan past January 1, which quickly became he would stay till the end of the season.

Just a day after that Pelligrini was saying that maybe Lampard could stay past that, and play another season in Manchester.

Which then turned into, well Lampard never signed with NY and he just has a verbal promise to play there in July!

Something weird is going on here, and Reyna and Kreis are starting to look like buffoons. They need to step up and sy something soon, because Pellegrini and Lampard are playing them.

Either MLS got fooled, And New York too.

Or New York lied.

Or MLS and Man City are in cahoots to subvert contract laws and player movement in England, with a willing Lampard.

Or simply NY and MLS have no balls.

That or already NY and MLS have decided they don't want Lampard, and this is the slow process of saving face and basically cutting him loose.

 

Wouldn't it save more face to do it quickly? Why does it have to be a slow process of basically cutting him loose?

Would seem strange at this point if MLS HQ told NYCFC/CFG they could not sign/have Lampard as a DP.

 

Lampard has signed a contract to join NYC on July 1st and he will not be at Man City next season, his agent has told talkSPORT #MCFC #NYCFC

— Kevin Palmer 💙 (@RealKevinPalmer) January 8, 2015

 

Fool me once ...

 

Good business, there.

Now they can update their answer to the EPL.

 

Our long national nightmare is (almost) over.

 

I don't understand how this is possible, since NYCFC does not even exist yet ...

 

The owners of Red Bull need to contact the City group and get Lampard for their team.. Just repaint the billboards afterwards

 

Maybe NYCFC fans should pressure their ownership to file a complaint with FIFA about this...oh wait.

 

Actually, in this instance I'm pretty sure Greedy shot signed first.

 

Are people really accepting this? It is better to say nothing than to lie further. "didn't exist" wow. That is the best they could come up with?
Interesting that an organization that didn't exist had a front office, director, head coach...etc. They really need to stoop spinning different stories at this point.

 

This all makes my head hurt. So basically he "pinky swore" to come play for them.

If the agreement was for him to play in July why did we just go through all this? Wouldn't they have just told everyone from the beginning he was signed with Man City and would play for NYCFC in July? Instead they told everyone he signed with NYCFC and was loaned to Man City until Jan. Doesn't add up Don.

 

Lampard himself said he agreed to come in January and until now all parties have been publically calling this a loan to MC.