mrplow2000
Registered
He is in porn films too?
Yup, The Mercenary and The Liar. Soccer can suck at times.
you see what i did there
Frank Lampard Thread
- Thread starter Kjbert
- Start date
He is in porn films too?
Yup, The Mercenary and The Liar. Soccer can suck at times.
you see what i did there
This is all irrelevant. It's clear that Giovinco asked if he could move earlier, and Juve said ok. Is your point that Lampard didn't have enough incentive to start when he and everyone else said he would start? Bottom line is, he should have been here from day 1. He chose to stay with MCFC instead, which means NYCFC is not a top priority for him. This is clear as day. The fact that Giovinco doesn't get much playing time at Juve, or that Lampard scores more goals is completely irrelevant.
One dude agreed to play for a team, and made moves to play for them earlier than agreed. The other dude agreed to play for a team, and made moves to play for them later than agreed.
mrplow2000
Registered
The last paragraph is correct, nail on head and no one disputes that.
My point was that Giovinci was being built up as some coup. He is nowhere near that, the problem is narrative. Lampard has had a full and prosperous career, Giovinco is sketchy and certainly nowhere near the success of Lampard. Lampard was released by Chelsea. Mourinho felt they would operate better without him. He had choices and no obligation to any club. Giovinco was on a contract and rather than staying and seeing out the season, knowing with injuries he would get chances and contribute, he bailed and went for the money. So, on this point who has the poorer character? Lampard is a liar and Giovinco is a mercenary. That is the point i was making.
On the other hand none of that may matter and people want to look to the future, that is another narrative and one we have no idea of. It may well be Giovinco may bail out at the end of the MLS season as a European club decides to take a chances with him, meanwhile Lampard carries on and makes more MLS appearances. Anyhow, i am starting to ramble. I explained the point i was making.
N
Nicholas Constantino
Guest
Although I'm sure Mourinho felt that Chelsea would operate better without him, as they definitely do. I don't think Chelsea "released" Lampard. There are conflicting accounts, but I have no reason to not believe Mourinho on this matter and he said that Lampard was offered a contract and declined. I am sure he declined because it was either a reduce role or a reduced wage, both would amount to reasonable enough motive to decline, but the story Lampard painted was that Mourinho showed him the door and said he wasn't welcome at Chelsea any longer. Which isn't true at all.
I have no reason to think this other than just gut feeling, but I really believe the reason Lampard said he was released and not offered a contract is so he could go to City the entire time, with no intention to come to NYCFC. That could be completely wrong, but its just how I feel.
Although I do agree with your general point. I think people over rate the loyalty that soccer players need to show and are too quick to label players as mercenaries. After all, it is their career and I don't blame them for trying to get the best job with the most money in the best location possible.
I would have had no problem with Lampard leaving Chelsea and signing for City if he was completely honest about it. If he said he thought he could contribute more to their midfield (which is true) and he wanted to finish out his career with more money (which is probably true) then that would have been fine.
FYI, "released" is the term used for a player when he leaves a club due to end-of-contract, it doesn't just mean that he was no longer wanted. It doesn't matter at all whether he is offered a contract and whether he refuses that offer, if he is not sold and his contract is not terminated then he is officially deemed to have been released.
franchise646
Registered
Possibly. I honestly have no idea what being "cut" is in US sports. I thought it just meant when you are dropped from the squad (i.e. not selected even for the bench)?
It should maybe be mentioned that I'm used to player contracts that always have a defined length, so if in the US it's common for players to simply walk away from their club entirely because they're not getting a game then that's not something I'm familiar with.
franchise646
Registered
Being cut is being released they go hand and hand, it mean no longer being on contract or no longer being with the team at all.
N
Nicholas Constantino
Guest
Yeah I wasn't aware that being released is when a player leaves the club, regardless of the reason. I have always thought that is when the decision to leave is based on the club, not the player. I apologize @mrplow2000
mrplow2000
Registered
It is was widely reported Mourinho felt that the Blues made the right decision as, according to him, the midfielder continued stay would hamper the progress of upcoming players.
"My view is that, when you want to look forward, look to the future, and have people like (Cesc) Fabregas and (Nemanja) Matic and Jeremie Boga (a U21 midfielder), which are the next 10 years of the club,"
"The project is to prepare for the next 10 years, not for the next year. We made the right decision."
Google the quotes, he was moved on for the benefit of the club. Nothing wrong with it. Nothing to do with MCFC or NYCFC.
"My view is that, when you want to look forward, look to the future, and have people like (Cesc) Fabregas and (Nemanja) Matic and Jeremie Boga (a U21 midfielder), which are the next 10 years of the club,"
"The project is to prepare for the next 10 years, not for the next year. We made the right decision."
Google the quotes, he was moved on for the benefit of the club. Nothing wrong with it. Nothing to do with MCFC or NYCFC.
mrplow2000
Registered
I can only begin to imagine your surprise at opening a Frank Lampard thread and finding out we were talking about Frank Lampard.
I wonder what life's box of chocolates will reveal next.
I wonder what life's box of chocolates will reveal next.
Reese's?
NYCFCFan10
Registered
Giovinco is a coup for MLS. Much the same way getting Michael Bradley back was a coup. It used to be MLS couldn't get any Americans, that could land at a first division club in Europe, back until they were over 30. Michael Bradley changed that.
Then it used to be that we couldn't get a European player that could still play 1st division ball in Europe before they were 30. Now Giovinco changes that. Even if he's only a bench player at Juventus, a bench player at Juventus is still good enough to start at plenty of top flight clubs in Europe.
Also, who isn't a mercenary? Its a professional game, every gun is for hire for the right price.
Last edited:
This.
N
Nicholas Constantino
Guest
There are a select few players who have shown loyalty to a club above their paycheck. While that is often a rare and admirable situation, it is extremely hard to fault players who want to play for the most money possible. Like basically any other career players should work as hard as they can to further themselves to earn the best life they can for them and their families.
I'm in full agreement, and would just add that it would be nice if so many of them wouldn't avow that it's not about the money when it clearly and almost always is. Meanwhile, the "rare and admirable" ones usually just let their deeds speak for them.
The curse marches on.
NYCFCFan10
Registered
If they were smart, they'd cut their losses and have Lampard join NY while they're in Manchester...
If United win, they'll be 3 points behind City. Lol
If United win, they'll be 3 points behind City. Lol
