N
Nicholas Constantino
Guest
Is that because they are an extremely well run club or because a ton of money was pumped into them which is something we can't do.
Frank Lampard Loan Extension
- Thread starter JCizzle
- Start date
- Status
Because for starters one is somewhere in England and the other is the World's capital.
Let him bask in his transcontinental glory now. In a couple years Manchester will be nothing more than the place Karl Pilkington and United was from.
I don't see how that changes anything. He will still be missing almost a month a training with the squad he signed with.
He's a rag & nobody like him
Besides the two football clubs Manchester is a great city,
Anyway the topic on the terraces was frank yesterday, obviously all rumour but one of the lads who tags along to the away games with us said it is wrapped up that frank will be with us for the season & could be announced this week
He is connected to city in some way and is a good lad, i'm still one of those who only believes anything when its on the mcfc website.......
And as ive already stated i think Frank should honour his agreement with you club........
I think its perfectly legit to worry what Lampard will bring down the road because he will essentially go from August 2014 to December 2015 w/out a break and he will be 38 next year. And why is this a worry? Because he will probably not end his loan at the proper and prearranged time of the end of the year. Thank you!
I do believe that it started with a bunch of money poured in to bring it up to snuff. That said other then the ETIHAD Campus money isn't be poured into the team. It is a well run club.
And that is the reason the team can't be run as in Manchester? The running of the club has no bearing on where it is.
I believe I read somewhere that he would be training with the. Whilst they are in Manchester training.
Why? Except for maybe 1 or 2 posts, most of it is relevant to the topic at hand. Just because you have a minor seizure whenever someone mentions Man City doesn't mean it should always be banished to the dark part of the forum.
People have to remember MLS has a playoff scheme. So generally whoever is peaking at the end of the season wins. So having Lampard in as best condition as possible is extremely important later in the season. If he's burned out before the playoffs then we are screwed.
So having City keep ahold of him without a break before he has to start his MLS duties will likely be a detriment to both Lampard and the team as a whole.
So having City keep ahold of him without a break before he has to start his MLS duties will likely be a detriment to both Lampard and the team as a whole.
I'm obviously not ALL City fans but here are my 2 cents.
I obviously want Lampard to stay at least until Yaya comes back from ACON unless some signing is made in January. He's been good for City and as Pellegrini would say
- he is important player for us.I understand that you guys are not happy about this, I wouldn't be too if it would be opposite but you should understand that neither you or me if it would be opposite are ones who would make any decisions about this.
CFG bought MLS franchize to add to their business, there's no emotions in business decisions. As long as Man City are their main money machine they'll get priority in situations like this one. YOu can go mad, you can do whatever you want but that's how it is. If NYCFC ever becomes main money machine than it will be opposite, it will get priority.
It might look like shit, it might even smell like it but only way to deal with it is to put things where they belong in your heads and well, deal with it. If they decide that Lampard is important part of City challenging for Premier League and Champions League they'll keep it longer than you'd like. If they decide he is more needed to boost NYCFC start than to help Man City than he'll be back on time.
You guys just have to realize that NYCFC is part of the group and not completely independent organization, and that currently it is Man City who are the top part of that group. You've got best owners on the world and if you show some patience you'd be very, very happy soon. The other way is to be mad at one or two situations like this one and then again be happy soon, so why bother being mad at all.
I understand that many of you are fans of other Premier League clubs and can't stand Man City. You'd love that your PL club bought this franchise and I am fairly sure you'd feel less angry if that your club did the Lampard thing and not City. But it isn't, it's City. You might hate it but your sons probably won't. They'll go to watch NYCFC, they'll grow up seeing connections between NYCFC and MCFC and they'll grow up to like Man City too. That's why CFG has been founded and that's why all clubs in it will benefit from those connections. If it wasn't to Man City I'd never give a thought about NYCFC or write on this forum for ex.
So, the future is bright for all CFG clubs, it's up to you how you will approach it. With fun or not.
Last edited:
And THIS mentality and business logic will make you and CFG enemies of NYCFC fans and MLS fans forever and ever. NYCFC ownership is not going to make very many in-roads into promoting this team in North America with this type of business acumen.I'm obviously not ALL City fans but here are my 2 cents.
I obviously want Lampard to stay at least until Yaya comes back from ACON unless some signing is made in January. He's been good for City and as Pellegrini would say
I understand that you guys are not happy about this, I wouldn't be too if it would be opposite but you should understand that neither you or me if it would be opposite are ones who would make any decisions about this.
CFG bought MLS franchize to add to their business, there's no emotions in business decisions. As long as Man City are their main money machine they'll get priority in situations like this one. YOu can go mad, you can do whatever you want but that's how it is. If NYCFC ever becomes main money machine than it will be opposite, it will get priority.
It might look like shit, it might even smell like it but only way to deal with it is to put things where they belong in your heads and well, deal with it.
I think you'll find a large group of even NYC fans that would prefer to not have a team then be the red-headed stepchild. Let alone anyone who has zero stake in NYC soccer and just loves MLS and American soccer culture.
Mostly agree with you about things except this part and your imploring us to just "deal with it". Yes, I have another epl team I support. But I can't go to every match - lucky to make one a year, frankly. So naturally, I would guess I'll become more attached to NYCFC than LFC. But it won't likely impact me or future generations of my family or others.
There must be some sort of cultural divide among Americans and Brits on the ownership front. In the US, owners are rarely mentioned unless they are an embarrassment. You have a Jerry Jones or (did) have a Steinbrenner. But no one chooses a team based on that. I sure as hell don't support the Red Sox just because FSG bought LFC.
The idea of being for a "group" doesn't really sell here. Yes, for MCFC fans here, it's a fortuitous and happy conincedence. But given that I think most here are like me in that we were going to support the team that was built in NYC, I think that's all it is. Even the MCFC fans here would probably be here anyway.
I'm just glad it's not ManU. That's the one exception where I would draw the line. Otherwise, I don't care about the ownership so long as they don't undermine the club. I look at season ticket holders as shareholders, and the ownership team has a fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of those ticket holders. That means, in our and your case, they need to put on different hats sometimes. Otherwise, they aren't doing right by the particular team.
Oh, and it's not about money. You have to know that. As I've said before, Mansour could burn these investments in his fireplace and get the same return. It's mostly for PR purposes for his family, with a little bit of a want to have a hobby I'd guess. None of this stuff moves a needle for him financially.
Last edited:
I really can't wrap my head around the complete lack of empathy which goes into this type of statement, and you're the latest in a long line of MCFC fans who have signed up to say or imply something similar. Obviously I can't say for sure how I'd feel if the shoe was on the other foot, but I'm pretty sure that even if Everton had bought NYCFC and was threatening to hold Lampard, who was busy tearing up Merseyside (as if Bill had that kind of money...), I'd still think it was shit for them to keep a player who should be the star signing in the first ever season of the other club. Would I like to have him scoring goals for my club in the EPL? Of course, but at the end of the day I'd much rather support a club and player who honor their commitments.
I'm in that boat and I'll agree it's pretty unusual whether you are Brit or American (I'm neither). For me it helps that I wasn't passionate about a team in MLS, A-League or J-League. I'm also pretty intrigued about how CFG is going to make things work between the clubs and how they are going to make each of them a success. But it's not really how I would expect to fall into supporting a club.
I think there is also an element (as a MCFC fan ... sorry, dirty word I know) of knowing what a great ride it is under the ownership. It hasn't been perfect but it's been an amazing time to be supporting MCFC, why not go on that ride with the other three clubs as well?
Anyway, onto Lampard.
For me I can wear my NYCFC hat and say that I don't want Kries and Reyna to be dictated to by a manager of another club whose motivation is getting the best for his club, not NYCFC. It's a recipe for disaster and it immediately demeans NYCFC.
With my MCFC hat on I don't want the club to be involved in that sort of relationship with another club. I don't blame Pellegrini for wanting to keep Lampard, he's been very good. I wish he'd cut out the public comments thought, I see them as disrespectful to another club (particularly a partner club) and I think potentially constitutes an illegal approach.
I'm not sure whether Lampard wants to stay or go, but I think it's a call for the City Football Group to make, not Pellegrini or Lampard himself. The big mistake they have made so far is not making that call months ago and communicating that to all concerned. We're here a couple of days before the end of his loan period and we still don't know what he'll be doing next week. It's lead to negative press, idle speculation and it's kept a pretty negative issue fresh in peoples minds for weeks now. All while the club is trying to attract supporters, season ticket holders and buyers for it's merchandise.
For me keeping Lampard until the Manchester training camp is a good compromise. I know some want him back earlier, but I think he can play for MCFC until then and still be fresh for the start of the MLS season. It would send a pretty powerful message to dissenters that NYCFC is an important club to the group in it's own right.
I've largely taken a wait and see approach here, but I am starting to get a bit concerned about the relationship, moreso than the outcome of this particular discussion.
If MLS were a minor league of the BPL and NYCFC were the MCFC affiliate, we'd have no standing. But that has never been the explicit arrangement -- these are affiliated clubs, not parent/child clubs.
I hate slippery slope arguments, but is there anything that would prevent MCFC from taking on David Villa if Aguero were to be ruled out at some point after the transfer window?
At some point UEFA and/or FIFA are going to have to clarify these kinds of relationships, as I imagine CFC won't be the only ones trying to pull this off -- especially if it gives CFC an end run around the FFP rules.
I would be happy if Lampard plays for MCFC up until the moment the NYCFC plane leaves Manchester.
By the way, Toure not in the squad today, yet Lamps is still on the bench.
If MLS were a minor league of the BPL and NYCFC were the MCFC affiliate, we'd have no standing. But that has never been the explicit arrangement -- these are affiliated clubs, not parent/child clubs.
I hate slippery slope arguments, but is there anything that would prevent MCFC from taking on David Villa if Aguero were to be ruled out at some point after the transfer window?
At some point UEFA and/or FIFA are going to have to clarify these kinds of relationships, as I imagine CFC won't be the only ones trying to pull this off -- especially if it gives CFC an end run around the FFP rules.
I would be happy if Lampard plays for MCFC up until the moment the NYCFC plane leaves Manchester.
By the way, Toure not in the squad today, yet Lamps is still on the bench.
- Status
