Lampard never signed for New York City and is solely registered for Manchester City

Hollister11

http://www.theguardian.com/football/2015/jan/08/frank-lampard-manchester-city-premier-league-response-new-york-city-fc

What do you think of this ?
I always thought he signed for NYC

GavRedKing

Its very messy, I dont expect the FA to anything about it though as the ramifications of potential 3rd party ownership is involved.
If they do and its a big if, City will only get a slap on the wrist and nothing severe.

Professional Griefer

https://twitter.com/ChelseaFC/status/492321195636043777

:pac:

Mr.Nice Guy

I thought the normal protocol was you go to New York City and get mugged, not you don't go to New York City but mug them.

Corholio

The MLS can sign all the Gerrards they want, but when they allow this kind of stuff to go on they will never grow as a league and be taken any way seriously.

duffman13

Corholio wrote: »

The MLS can sign all the Gerrards they want, but when they allow this kind of stuff to go on they will never grow as a league and be taken any way seriously.

In fairness it looks like the MLS has been mugged off in this one. Realistically what can the league do about this?

Corholio

duffman13 wrote: »

In fairness it looks like the MLS has been mugged off in this one. Realistically what can the league do about this?

They announced his signing and advertised season tickets based on his signing. Either the MLS knew about this 'no formal contract' with NY, or they didn't. Either way it shows them up as outrageously amateur and pandering to City's part ownership.

GavRedKing

If Lampard is owned by CFG and not City, then hes at City via 3rd party ownership.

At the very worst, most severe punishment, City would get points docked.

Although in saying that, I dont think City with their team of people would be silly enough not to know this and allow it to happen, if it has, then again, I cant see the FA coming down hard on them, apart from a bit of outrage state side, which is justified, I cant see any implactions on this side of the Atlantic for City or Lamps.

MonkeyTennis

Not sure of the legal ramifications of it but it stinks to high heaven

CSF

Haven't the FA already come out and said they're happy with Lampard's ownership situation?

He will go to the US in July IMO same as Gerrard.

GavRedKing

CSF wrote: »

Haven't the FA already come out and said they're happy with Lampard's ownership situation?

He will go to the US in July IMO same as Gerrard.

Its up to the CFG to either out and say they knew about Lampard joining City and thus, in effect, lying to the fans of the MLS about Lampard or that Lampard is registered with the CFG and makes his deal with City a 3rd party deal.

CSF

GavRedKing wrote: »

Its up to the CFG to either out and say they knew about Lampard joining City and thus, in effect, lying to the fans of the MLS about Lampard or that Lampard is registered with the CFG and makes his deal with City a 3rd party deal.

Or alternatively, say nothing, seeing as the Premier League have already confirmed they're happy with the situation.

I suspect this will be their approach.

GavRedKing

I can imagine City will be urging them to do so in this situation alright.

CSF

GavRedKing wrote: »

I can imagine City will be urging them to do so in this situation alright.

Realistically, aren't they City?

Nalz

All this clubs linked with, and\or owning other clubs is a load ****

CSF

Trilla wrote: »

All this clubs linked with, and\or owning other clubs is a load ****

Why?

Diabhal Beag

I'd like to think this is all happening to spite this fan

Nalz

CSF wrote: »

Why?

I understand the benefits of it, hence the vulgar word beginning with 'w' I used has benefits also.

I just don't like it all the time, prefer to keep it simple. Complications like this is a part of modern football I detest

The joint ownership of players, especially when not owned by clubs gets on me nerves big shhytle!

CSF

Trilla wrote: »

I understand the benefits of it, hence the vulgar word beginning with 'w' I used has benefits also.

I just don't like it all the time, prefer to keep it simple. Complications like this is a part of modern football I detest

The joint ownership of players, especially when not owned by clubs gets on me nerves big shhytle!

I agree with the joint ownership and 3rd party ownership but don't really see the problem with City and New York being commonly owned, with City loaning youth players to New York and City snapping up players from New York that are good enough for an EPL title race.

As long as Lampard's contract is in fact with City, or there's a valid loan contract from New York to Man City, I think it's fine.

But I agree that footballers should not be owned by individuals or 3rd party companies.

Giggsy11

CSF wrote: »

I agree with the joint ownership and 3rd party ownership but don't really see the problem with City and New York being commonly owned, with City loaning youth players to New York and City snapping up players from New York that are good enough for an EPL title race.

As long as Lampard's contract is in fact with City, or there's a valid loan contract from New York to Man City, I think it's fine.

But I agree that footballers should not be owned by individuals or 3rd party companies.

It can also be used to bypass FFP.

For example, NY club buys Mangala and sells him to City for free. If City wants to cover up any losses then sell their least important player to NY for hefty sum, just like how they reported that they sold some asset (players database) to Australian club for 20 plus million.

GavRedKing

CSF wrote: »

Realistically, aren't they City?

Ya, as an umbrella company to the people that own City.

Still dont think anything will happen at all.

LuckyLloyd

Giggsy11 wrote: »

It can also be used to bypass FFP.

For example, NY club buys Mangala and sells him to City for free. If City wants to cover up any losses then sell their least important player to NY for hefty sum, just like how they reported that they sold some asset (players database) to Australian club for 20 plus million.

And if it isn't this method, there will be some other way to beat FFP.

CSF

Giggsy11 wrote: »

It can also be used to bypass FFP.

For example, NY club buys Mangala and sells him to City for free. If City wants to cover up any losses then sell their least important player to NY for hefty sum, just like how they reported that they sold some asset (players database) to Australian club for 20 plus million.

That'll be the nature of FFP for a while.

Club finds loophole, UEFA closes loophole, club finds another loophole, repeat.

jaymcg91

I want to make it completely clear about my situation as I have read a lot of lies and nonsense over the last few days. When released from Chelsea last year at the end of my contract I signed a commitment to play in NYCFC for two years starting January 1st 2015. I was then offered the chance to train and be part of the Man City squad in the interim to keep myself in the best shape going into New York.This period has since been extended by Man City and I now will start playing for NYCFC at the end of this current Premier League season. There has always been a constant dialogue between all parties in this time to find the best solution for everyone. I can say that I am very excited about arriving in New York and giving everything to the team to make us a success in the MLS as soon as possible. Thanks everyone for your ongoing support and I wish everyone a healthy and happy 2015!

From his Facebook page:

https://www.facebook.com/franklampard?ref=br_tf

bucketybuck

Giggsy11 wrote: »

For example, NY club buys Mangala and sells him to City for free. If City wants to cover up any losses then sell their least important player to NY for hefty sum, just like how they reported that they sold some asset (players database) to Australian club for 20 plus million.

I used to do this in championship manager all the time, back in the day.

Pro. F

jaymcg91 wrote: »

From his Facebook page:

https://www.facebook.com/franklampard?ref=br_tf

So Lampard is now saying that Man City are lying to the Premier League. Good one Frank, thanks for clearing it up.

Giggsy11

Pro. F wrote: »

So Lampard is now saying that Man City are lying to the Premier League. Good one Frank, thanks for clearing it up.

City are saying NY announcing signing of Lampard was an error, City announcing him signing on loan was an error. Lol too many errors to make anyone believe the BS story. Even Pelligrini in so many interviews said they would like to extend Lampard's loan, why did he say that if Lampard was never on loan. Maybe one more error.

GavRedKing

Only fair way to deal with it is deduct points for every game he played in :pac:

bad2dabone

GavRedKing wrote: »

Only fair way to deal with it is deduct points for every game he played in :pac:

Absolutely

Dempsey

GavRedKing wrote: »

Only fair way to deal with it is deduct points for every game he played in :pac:

If his registration isnt correct, 3-0 results for every match he has minutes on the field is the minimum that should happen.

Billy86

Here's the thing though - no matter if it is deemed incorrect or not, the league won't do a single thing. The depth of City's pockets if it comes to a legal war of attrition simply scares the sh*t out of the Premiership and probably even UEFA/FIFA, I would imagine.

PhlegmyMoses

The way I understand it is that he signed to start a contract for NYFC in Jan, leaving him a free agent until then, which means playing for City up until then wasn't a loan, but a short term contract? So the loan should have been announced by Jan 1st. It seems pretty convoluted and at least a couple of people within the club structures don't seem to understand it either

Gavlor

bucketybuck wrote: »

I used to do this in championship manager all the time, back in the day.

That pretty much sums it up

Panthro

jaymcg91 wrote: »

From his Facebook page:

https://www.facebook.com/franklampard?ref=br_tf

Some flutes in the comments!
Lampards name will hold its head high in the list of all time great players of the EPL.
A hero and a gentleman, a class act if ever there was one.

thelad95

My understanding is that Lampard had signed a contract with the club, New York City, which in turn is owned by the same owners as Manchester City. Pellegrini then went to owners and said he wanted to keep Lampard for rest of season and the loan was extended.

However, there is a high possibilty 3rd party ownership is involved. I'd love to know just who or with what entity Lampard signed a contract with.

DVDM93

City will get deducted points, Chelsea will win the league and the main mastermind behind all of this will sit back and smile. He got rid of Lampard knowing this would happen, it was his plan all along.

One José Mourinho.

Giggsy11

sugarman wrote: »

Don't think it's possible with mls rules, they have strict policies on signings/wages.

..not entirely sure but I think they have a cap of 250k a year wage/signing fees per player outside of the 3 designated players a team is allowed per season

...or something like that

If not MLS then some Australian club or some Arabic club.

Lukker-

Interesting comments from Lampard in the Times. He said ‘There was no talk of Manchester City. It was all New York’. He said he thought he wouldn't be playing for New York for 6 months and that he could possibly train with Chelsea to stay fit.

He clearly didn't even understand who he was signing for and it looks like he is being held for the remainder of the season against his wishes.

City need to be called out on this IMO, as it seems they misled every party involved in this deal.

Here's the article http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/sport/football/premierleague/article4319252.ece

Donnielighto

Would love to see lampard come out against this, not because it's city, if I absolutely had to pick a team in the PL for it to happen to they would be one of them, this stinks to high heavens.

zAbbo

Panthro wrote: »

Some flutes in the comments!
A hero and a gentleman, a class act if ever there was one.

Well apart from sex tape with Rio & Dyer...

gosplan

zAbbo wrote: »

Well apart from sex tape with Rio & Dyer...

Were there girls involved too?

Blatter

Lukker- wrote: »

Interesting comments from Lampard in the Times. He said ‘There was no talk of Manchester City. It was all New York’. He said he thought he wouldn't be playing for New York for 6 months and that he could possibly train with Chelsea to stay fit.

He clearly didn't even understand who he was signing for and it looks like he is being held for the remainder of the season against his wishes.

City need to be called out on this IMO, as it seems they misled every party involved in this deal.

Here's the article http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/sport/football/premierleague/article4319252.ece

Ah here, you can't possibly believe that Lampard is being held at City against his wishes?

Lukker-

Blatter wrote: »

Ah here, you can't possibly believe that Lampard is being held at City against his wishes?

Most papers say he wanted to go to New York in January so as not to anger the fans or damage his reputation but it wasn't possible under PL rules the way City structured the deal it would be admitting to 3rd party ownership if he was allowed join up with New York.

Dempsey

Lukker- wrote: »

Most papers say he wanted to go to New York in January so as not to anger the fans or damage his reputation but it wasn't possible under PL rules the way City structured the deal it would be admitting to 3rd party ownership if he was allowed join up with New York.

You do realise that lampard has to agree to the 'loan extension' or any change in contract. He cannot be forced to, it's called duress and contracts are not legally binding if that happens

Lukker-

Dempsey wrote: »

You do realise that lampard has to agree to the 'loan extension' or any change in contract. He cannot be forced to, it's called duress and contracts are not legally binding if that happens

There was no change in the contract though because the contract he signed was with City and New York's holding company. From what he has repeatedly said which completely contradicts what City are saying, he was under the impression he was signing for New York and not City. He said there was absolutely no talk of City in contract negotiations. Then we have City saying to the PL that he 100% signed for City and not New York? Something is clearly wrong if a player doesn't know who he's signing for.

Dempsey

Lukker- wrote: »

There was no change in the contract though because the contract he signed was with City and New York's holding company. From what he has repeatedly said which completely contradicts what City are saying, he was under the impression he was signing for New York and not City. He said there was absolutely no talk of City in contract negotiations. Then we have City saying to the PL that he 100% signed for City and not New York? Something is clearly wrong if a player doesn't know who he's signing for.

Yet, he's happy to be playing for city.

Lukker-

Dempsey wrote: »

Yet, he's happy to be playing for city.

Well he's 36 and on the bench most weeks and they are paying him 180k a week.

His recent comments clearly show he doesn't appreciate the damage it's done to his reputation especially if the FA get involved.

Sheepy99

Nothing will happen because nobody's kicking up a fuss about it.
A twitter campaign is what we need. :pac:

Pro. F

Lukker- wrote: »

There was no change in the contract though because the contract he signed was with City and New York's holding company. From what he has repeatedly said which completely contradicts what City are saying, he was under the impression he was signing for New York and not City. He said there was absolutely no talk of City in contract negotiations. Then we have City saying to the PL that he 100% signed for City and not New York? Something is clearly wrong if a player doesn't know who he's signing for.

Lampard obviously new what was happening at every step of the way and is lying now to try and save face. The idea that a player could sign a contract thinking he would play for one team and then be forced to play for another team is beyond ridiculous.

Dempsey

Lukker- wrote: »

Well he's 36 and on the bench most weeks and they are paying him 180k a week.

His recent comments clearly show he doesn't appreciate the damage it's done to his reputation especially if the FA get involved.

His public comments dont mean shít.

He's happy where he is

Winston Payne

Lukker- wrote: »

Well he's 36 and on the bench most weeks and they are paying him 180k a week.

His recent comments clearly show he doesn't appreciate the damage it's done to his reputation especially if the FA get involved.

What damage to his reputation? The affair makes City look bad, not him.