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.