Some more insight in this article:
http://weaintgotnohistory.sbnation....l-club-frank-lampard-third-party-ownership-fa
http://weaintgotnohistory.sbnation....l-club-frank-lampard-third-party-ownership-fa
Frank Lampard Thread
- Thread starter Kjbert
- Start date
Hmmm. Where have I seen that TPO issue before? Oh, that's right. I brought it up.
That's the bitch of it all, and why they won't make a statement right now. Admit fraud. Or admit to breaking FA rules. They are taking the Fifth.
Oh, and while we're pointing out bullshit again, remember the guy who won the lunch? His report gave the impression that JK and CR knew what was going to happen. So the "blindsided" excuse the reps give you may be true for them, but it was organizational willful ignorance, designed and intended to happen just as and when it did.
Garber, in his rush to show he wasn't a duped fool, went out and gave away the (penal) farm with his pompous blowhard interview trying to act like he's Mr. Wolf.
Garber, in his rush to show he wasn't a duped fool, went out and gave away the (penal) farm with his pompous blowhard interview trying to act like he's Mr. Wolf.
Really? Can you give more details?
this +1000000000000
NYCFCFan10
Registered
Actually, I've thought long and hard about JK and CR's roles in this and it would not surprise me if they truly are ok with it.
I think JK wants Lampard but I think JK also knows he can build a winner without Lampard. I also think JK has bought into the whole "CFG is the team" thing...
I think JK wants Lampard but I think JK also knows he can build a winner without Lampard. I also think JK has bought into the whole "CFG is the team" thing...
MikeDatTiger
Registered
JK may be willing to toe the company line publicly but there is no way a coach as competitive as he is is happy about one of his best players not coming until July. Good chance they're keeping him away from reporters so he doesn't explode.
I think it's probably more of a wtf can we do about it than anything else.
mrplow2000
Registered
"Frank Lampard is registered as a Manchester City player until the end of the 2014/15 season."
"The Premier League has sought and received assurances from Manchester City that there is no agreement in place between the Club or City Football Group with New York City FC relating to the player."
2. Before registering a Player for a Club, The Association must be satisfied that there exist no
agreements between the Club or the Player and a Third Party under which a Third Party
will own or continue to own any registration or economic rights or the like in the Player
following registration.
The Chelsea fan is right, they have either lied to NYCFC fans or broached TPO. TPO has clearly not been broached as Manchester City are a recognised soccer identity. We know NYCFC have been lied to. Unfortunately his grasping of straws, hoping it is TPO violation rather than the lie, to benefit Chelsea has come unstuck.
How many different ways are people finding to crack the same egg?
beaucoup_movement
Registered
The only move now is to drop it entirely. It's over, there's no scenario where Lampard comes to New York (now, July, 2016, whenever) and slots in as the key contributer/face of the team/captain/star attraction that everyone originally envisioned.
That ship has sailed. Actually that ship was torpedoed and sank into the deepest, most remote part of the ocean. MLS, CFG and NYCFC management need to collectively understand that and find an alternative solution. Just move forward with two open DP spots and don't make the same mistake again.
Unfortunately the people calling the shots will stubbornly continue to force the issue, and this likely won't end until mid-summer. Lampard probably won't show, if he does he'll be booed and fans will be justified. The plan failed. Management needs to accept it and move on.
That ship has sailed. Actually that ship was torpedoed and sank into the deepest, most remote part of the ocean. MLS, CFG and NYCFC management need to collectively understand that and find an alternative solution. Just move forward with two open DP spots and don't make the same mistake again.
Unfortunately the people calling the shots will stubbornly continue to force the issue, and this likely won't end until mid-summer. Lampard probably won't show, if he does he'll be booed and fans will be justified. The plan failed. Management needs to accept it and move on.
I think you and I had this discussion before. I just failed to elocute the argument so precisely.
ESPN has now picked up the story:
http://www.espnfc.us/barclays-premi...-lampard-dealfinds-no-agreement-to-join-nycfc
http://www.espnfc.us/barclays-premi...-lampard-dealfinds-no-agreement-to-join-nycfc
Every time I try to advance a theory about anything based on the limited public knowledge we have available, someone points out something I didn't know about football/soccer. But that won't stop me now. After all, it has helped me learn.
So, anyway, we know Garber said there's a CFG contract, and the the PL just said there's no CFG contract. We also think FL must have an MC player contract. Plus we know he made appearances on behalf of NYCFC, and they sold his jersey, both of which would be unusual provisions under an MCFC contract.
So my guess is he has a non-player personal services contract with CFG that never required him to do anything athletic. That provided the basis for his summer tour in NYC and for the club to sell his shirt. That CFG contract might also have a provision providing that Lampard and NYCFC/MLS will enter into a player contract when mutually beneficial.
The PL, eager to cover things up and not confront one of its major teams, ignores the personal services contract, interpreting its rule as only applying to pure player contracts and clears MCFC.
Based on the personal services contract, the club tells ticket reps to continue to guarantee that FL will come to NY this coming summer.
If this theory is correct, btw, my legal analysis is that any provision in the CFG personal services contract that purports to require Lampard sign with NYCFC/MLS is unenforceable. First, courts hate agreements to agree. Second, it raises 13th amendment issues.
OK, now someone who knows more than me about intl football can explain why this isn't possibly true.
So, anyway, we know Garber said there's a CFG contract, and the the PL just said there's no CFG contract. We also think FL must have an MC player contract. Plus we know he made appearances on behalf of NYCFC, and they sold his jersey, both of which would be unusual provisions under an MCFC contract.
So my guess is he has a non-player personal services contract with CFG that never required him to do anything athletic. That provided the basis for his summer tour in NYC and for the club to sell his shirt. That CFG contract might also have a provision providing that Lampard and NYCFC/MLS will enter into a player contract when mutually beneficial.
The PL, eager to cover things up and not confront one of its major teams, ignores the personal services contract, interpreting its rule as only applying to pure player contracts and clears MCFC.
Based on the personal services contract, the club tells ticket reps to continue to guarantee that FL will come to NY this coming summer.
If this theory is correct, btw, my legal analysis is that any provision in the CFG personal services contract that purports to require Lampard sign with NYCFC/MLS is unenforceable. First, courts hate agreements to agree. Second, it raises 13th amendment issues.
OK, now someone who knows more than me about intl football can explain why this isn't possibly true.
@mgarbowski i just got off the phone with fan services. They, unsurprisingly, have no idea what to make of it. They just said they were told to ensure/promise/guarantee (can't remember the word, I didn't ask for a guaranty other than FFF not coming - didn't get it, btw - so I'm sure it wasn't that term) that FFF would be here in July.
I shared my thoughts on how he'd be accepted. My rep said "Frank's a big boy." At which point, I laughed out loud and said, "yeah, that's what he's accused of all the time, anyway."
I shared my thoughts on how he'd be accepted. My rep said "Frank's a big boy." At which point, I laughed out loud and said, "yeah, that's what he's accused of all the time, anyway."
mrplow2000
Registered
Every time I try to advance a theory about anything based on the limited public knowledge we have available, someone points out something I didn't know aboutfootball/soccer. But that won't stop me now. After all, it has helped me learn.
So, anyway, we know Garber said there's a CFG contract, and the the PL just said there's no CFG contract. We also think FL must have an MC player contract. Plus we know he made appearances on behalf of NYCFC, and they sold his jersey, both of which would be unusual provisions under an MCFC contract.
So my guess is he has a non-player personal services contract with CFG that never required him to do anything athletic. That provided the basis for his summer tour in NYC and for the club to sell his shirt. That CFG contract might also have a provision providing that Lampard and NYCFC/MLS will enter into a player contract when mutually beneficial.
The PL, eager to cover things up and not confront one of its major teams, ignores the personal services contract, interpreting its rule as only applying to pure player contracts and clears MCFC.
Based on the personal services contract, the club tells ticket reps to continue to guarantee that FL will come to NY this coming summer.
If this theory is correct, btw, my legal analysis is that any provision in the CFG personal services contract that purports to require Lampard sign with NYCFC/MLS is unenforceable. First, courts hate agreements to agree. Second, it raises 13th amendment issues.
OK, now someone who knows more than me about intl football can explain why this isn't possibly true.
You are a lawyer
I think you have made some excellent and pertinent observations. There is third option though. Image rights although not sure if you may mean that with personal services.
If FL has signed an agreement directly with NYCFC, then, as he was a free agent, he and NYCFC were perfectly legal in doing a deal. Football would not enter this as it is a private deal. Also he may well have signed this deal having had himself, his agent, MCFC, CFG and NYCFC all sitting down and getting the steps and timeline in perfect alignment, giving MLS and PL, no grounds for action. Shrewd or devius, freedom fighter or terrorist?? Depends on view point.
Also, it is perfectly plausible that the monies or agreement were lodged in a country that has no legal recognition towards the US and UK and is a tax haven, thus making legal action far more opaque.
As an example, MUFC are registered in Delaware as the legal niceties there are apparently the most convoluted in the US as regards financial accessibility.
Delaware has good protections for board members due to pretty strict application of the business judgment doctrine, i.e., basically you have to be grossly negligent or worse to be liable to shareholders for even the dumbest of decisions.
Our lawyer boy who actually practices can tell you more. Surprised I was awake that (any) day in corporate governance.
Our lawyer boy who actually practices can tell you more. Surprised I was awake that (any) day in corporate governance.
You are a lawyer
There is third option though. Image rights although not sure if you may mean that with personal services.
yeah, personal services is just a catch-all for personal appearances, image rights, publicity rights, name rights, etc. Anything except the main thing the person does.
Who are you billing for this, btw?
