Having watched Frank break the record yesterday I knew I was among millions scratching their heads wondering how come he hasnt been signed up on a rolling contract! When I say millions , I mean everyone who watches the game whoever they support! There are only a handful of people who think otherwise and they unfortunately sit on the Chelsea board! Do they take pleasure in trying to come across as a bunch of thicko's????
I basically agree with the "over 30s " philosophy, but not in black and white terms. Some players do taper off smartish in their early 30s, but others don't and carry top form for several years. Frank is one of those. His form is as good at any time with the Club, especially when someone like Luiz is playing and allowing Frank to play his natural game. First goal yesterday was just a great Lampard strike. Second was very very clever. His vision and timing of the run is not something many can do. Frank does it naturally. So, definitely another Year for Frank. Hope the upstairs thickos wake up and see what everyone else sees.
This. If he had been a regular starter I bet he would have had 20-25 league goals, easy. Ive seen no evidence to suggest a dip in Franks form in the last couple of years. He is scoring less, because he is playing less, and for no other reason.
I can't see why age is such a big factor in this (as in age is just a number) forget his age just look at his performance that's what matters. As we get older we 'adapt' he may not be able to run as fast as the youngsters but in other ways can outdo them. From the minute they were 'paired' I thought Lamps and Luiz ideal together. Individual players don't do it for me, its when all sorts of combinations come into play that players can bounce off each other. That's what makes a good team. I saw it immediately Luiz came on the pitch for the second half and the game changed.
Whilst I agree age is just a number to a point, the older a player gets the more likely age will catch up or more likely for injuries to occur. Franks on a lot of money and the club have to look at everything. Personally I think the guy is brilliant and still has enough to offer to easilly warrant a 1 year rolling contract.
Without claiming to know much, if anything, about accounting for player transfers, I suspect it's related to the fact that his market value is declining faster than his salary. His impact on the income statement is not declining, yet his value as an asset on the balance sheet is - at a faster and faster rate. To renew the contract, we would presumably have to accept an increase in our liabilities to the value of his future wages (or whatever the contract stipulates to be the cancellation amount) - balanced by an equal increase in assets. However given his age, this asset would now have to be depreciated faster than previously over the term of the contract. Faster depreciation -> drop in income -> squeeze on the bottom line. Of course, his contribution to our revenue (e.g. Champs League qualification) is literally immeasurable. As are the facts that he is an outstanding ambassador for the club, and has so much experience to impart - how do you value these intangibles? Therin lies the problem - we have a bunch of suits in the board who know nothing about football and everything about sales, marketing and finance. To them, the only 'value' players have are the tangibles on the financial statements. They have no respect for the intangible value that legends like Lampard add to the club and what they mean to its fans and its history. Lampard is undoutedly Chelsea's greatest ever player (yes, more so than Zola and Osgood), but in the world of Buck, Gourlay & Emenalo, there are no intangibles when it comes to playing assets. In short, they have no idea what club football is all about.
Any debate about an age of a player is always loaded. Some players have to adapt their game to remain at the top level for a prolonged period of time (Giggs), but some players aren't really effected by a diminishing physical capability (Lampard). Even when players do start to decline you have to also look at what they bring into training and the dressing room. If Ryan Giggs didn't epitomize Manchester United's playing philosophy, I doubt he'd still be playing at almost 40 if he didn't have an important presence in training. From what I've noticed Lampard is still a top top player and I'm sure he has an important role in the dressing room and training. If you don't sign him up on another contract then someone in your board room needs to be slapped.
This is spot on! I believe the bottom line on Frank Lampard ( and next year John Terry) is all about EUFA's FFP rules! I reckon if the pair of them said "cut my wages in half" there would not be an argument!
The pay cut thing was discussed (apparently) a good few months back , but this is the star so who knows http://www.dailystar.co.uk/posts/view/291137/Frank-Lampard-pay-cut-bid-fails
BM, given that Frank is worth conservatively, 50mill, and that he "loves" Chelsea and wants to stay, why won't he take a pay cut ?? Even a 50% cut would bring him in a week, more than double what most people earn in a year. Loyalty and affection has to be a two way thing. Come on Frank, show us you care.
I think agents have more of a say in this than we care to believe! Something like, we can arrange 2 years at LA Galaxy for £300k a week, where FFP means bugger all!
I thought team medical departments knew the players down to molecular level, metabolism, muscular strength, stamina.........so why limit contracts to age? I guess because contracts tend to work in seasons and the body doesn't. What I don't know is the length of contract Lampard wants before signing. Any player can sign for five years and break a leg in the first game, for that there is insurance, but at thirty five insurance is harder to come by for a high value player. So it all comes down to the length of contract offered and the weekly wage which would set the premium. Now you may take the view that Chelsea are loaded what the heck just sign him up. Is that responsible club management? What about the talent we have who won't wait on loan forever? Have these guy been made promises to keep them from leaving?
True, but these are all intangibles, only appreciated and valued by those who understand football. As I said in my previous, I strongly suspect the board have no appreciation of, and do not account for, intangible football assets such as dressing room impact, role model capacity, and ambassadorial capability. They are suits, not football men. The only thing that matters to them are wages, depreciating resale value, and the bottom line - only on that basis you could possibly argue for not renewing his contract.
