It is now becoming very apparent that he obviously does not give two hoots about his former club. If city go on to win the title by a couple of points from chelsea this season ...... ? "i will never play for another pl club" my arse.
He was dumped by chelsea...so he aint done anything wrong. I aint a a fan of his but I suspect his comment was about him choosing to leave chelsea and going to another club, but as he didnt choose to leave it aint the same thing. If he wins the league with city it will show that chelsea made a mistake in letting him go...and most, if not all, clubs have made a mistake like that. To be honest your comment sounds worthy of a west ham fan
Jose didn't dump him. He was expecting to play week in week out with us. However - he has settled for cameo roles with City, which suits him at this stage of his career.
Lamps aside it does look like Whinger was right about Citeh side stepping the financial fair play rules. Lamps was offered a choice, that choice though was only possible because the the same owners at both clubs. He is obviously a great signing and needed yet the cost of it is being born by NYC. Lamps would be the biggest player at NYC, fans have bought season tickets on the strength of him signing. Do you really think any other club not with the same owner would allow their star player to miss three months of the season and worse yet risk an injury for another team that could possibly mean he may never play for them? UEFA and FIFA don't really give a monkeys so long as the cash keeps rolling in.
I was SURE he said this, and to be honest, I feel he's just stuck two fingers up at us and chased his check. Furthermore, who is paying his wages? City or their sham, USA franchise? To me this is as shady as anything PSG/City have done previously to avoid FFP regulation, and I'd love to see both Frank and City taken to task over this. Its sad that I feel this way but its what it is. Franks done us over here.
There is an odious smell coming from City because of this. No problem with Lamps playing to gain fitness when NYC season had not commenced. David Villa played for Melbourne, another City owned club, for exactly that reason but went off to NYC 3 weeks ago. Lampards situation is all wrong and Frank should not be allowed to play for City and be paid by someone else.
OK found this : Earlier this month, Wenger queried whether the move was designed to “get round” the FFP Regulation.2 Since his comments, Man City have been quick to point out that they will be paying Lampard’s wages themselves during his loan spell and there is nothing underhand about the transaction. It is worth noting at the outset that, as a standalone transaction, the Lampard deal does not breach the FFP Regulations per se. However, potentially there is scope for UEFA to view the deal as a “related party transaction”). The rules related to related party transactions empower UEFA to adjust the value of the deal when assessing City’s future “break-even” calculations. I'm also guessing though Frank was paid a signing fee which wasn't by Man City or his agent who also would of been paid by NYC and this would of been a substantial sum as past deals to free agents have included fees up to four million pounds in the past..
full details here. http://www.lawinsport.com/sports/fo...ise-financial-fair-play-concerns-for-man-city
Guys lets be honest. You only give a monkeys because City caught you up. if there was still an eight point gap this thread would not exist. As for the shady dealing. FFP is not about fair play, the sooner you get that into your heads the better. This is just some evidence FFP is a joke. City owns half of the club that signed lamps and then loans lamps to City, a club who cannot sign him.
Probably something to do with not being able to pay his wages? Not sure, never looked into it but given City were already in breach of FFP I'd imagine that was it, yet they must be paying them at least partially atm? It's always the same though, financial rules are set up to suit the big boys, you need lots of money to circumvent them just like with tax laws
True drogs but I think the time to start moaning about it was when they initially started playing him ala Wenger. None of you had any real issues with it until he scored two key goals of late that got City all three points I am assuming? Just saying like, the time to bitch was then, and also, didn't Chelsea already know City own half of the club that signed Lampard? I am pretty sure they did know when they did the deal
I am not up on FFP and who has received what sanctions. What sanctions have City been slapped with so far re how they are cheating FFP.? Have they a transfer ban or? I'm only aware of their limited CL squad sanction
We had an embargo on transfers so we could spend no more than £49m nett So far we have only used up £23m so have a little to spend in January We haven't broken any FFP rules or been cheating Lampard was a free agent when he left chelsea,we are paying all his wages until such time as he joins up with New York City FC Perhaps Lampard is to blame for Chelsea's appalling defending at the Lane as well,what a **** he is
Cheers. Seems pretty straight forward. Credit to lamps because he performed as such in his spell before US games started that City wanted to keep him and who'd begrudge him a chance of another PL medal. His last chance to get another. Can't say I'd be happy but can't say I'd blame him either. The US club allowed this remember as did Lamps, it was not City's decision, they only own half of that club, some US sports Franchise owns the other half. I do get why it would piss off Chelsea fans, how could it not seem like a bit of a betrayal, Cashley Cole and the gooners springs to mind, now that's betrayal
