Per Alexi Lalas: " Mark Abbott Told Me There Is No Possibility He Doesn't Come At All."

[Ahab_Flanders]

For the millionth time, FFP has nothing to do with this. Lampard was a free transfer and Man City has been paying his wages, so they've gained no FFP advantage.

Here's what I believe happened: nobody on the MLS side thought there was any chance that Man City would want FL past the new year, but someone at CFC was smart enough to structure the contract the way it was structured JUST IN CASE (maybe was one of Lampard's people).

MLS allowed it because they must have assumed (like everyone else) that it didn't matter. Remember Man City basically wanted Lampard to ensure they complied with the UEFA 8 locally trained player requirement.

So no, I don't think there was intentional duping -- they likely allowed the initial structure because they thought it could never bite them in the ass. Now, they're caught with their pants down and that's not much they can do about. The mistake wad allowing the original structure and not publicly talking about.

It seems unlikely there was any way to stop what happened from happening once MCFC decided they wanted to keep him.

He looked like shite playing an hour yesterday, by the way...

It's not violating FFP, but to say it has nothing to do with it is a bit disingenuous. Lampard being on a free doesn't violate FFP, just like his contract was catefully structured so they could extend it outside the window if needed. But if it weren't for FFP restrictions in the summer window would MCFC have bothered with Lampard? I'd be willing to bet they would have bought someone else and this extension wouldn't have been needed.

 

[adam]

Has there been anything that says Lampard has signed a contract with NYCFC to start the summer of 2015? Is he allowed to have a signed future contract with another team while under contract with MCFC? I guess the real question I'm getting at, is if Lampard becomes a free agent after his MCFC contract expires, what's to stop him from saying "You know what, I'd rather play for West Ham next season and finish my career there"?

 

[FredMertz]

Yes, they did get a FFP advantage by doing signing him as opposed to loaning him. UEFA has made clear they would put fair market price on all inter-CFG dealings. So if Etihad pays more than UEFA thinks its worth, they knock it down.

So if Lampard was loaned to MCFC, there's a strong chance UEFA would say that well MCFC should have paid money to NYCFC for that loan. Doing it this way takes that possibility out of the equation, hence helping MC avoid possible FFP pitfalls.

I'm having trouble following you.

The guy was a free transfer available for free to any club in the world.

So how could any argument be made that the market value of the transfer was anything but zero?

Anyway, your making the point that MCFC's relationship with NYCFC actually makes it harder for them to deal with each other, not easier.

 

[adam]

Any attorneys want to take a stab at this? Looks like the answer is in FIFA rules, Section IV Article 18. I didn't even sleep in a Holiday Inn last night, but it looks like a contract could be signed with NYCFC if MCFC's contract concludes before the end of June and with MCFC's permission (6 month rule).

And he could not have had a previous contract with NYCFC till the beginning of July since MCFC's original contact ended on December 31st (unless extensions count for the 6 month rule). And if he did sign with NYCFC in July, is that contract now void since it goes longer than 6 months? Will we get an announcement if he signs a new contract? Maybe they could announce it by the midtown tunnel entrance this time?

http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/aff...e_status_and_transfer_of_players_en_33410.pdf

 

[mgarbowski]

This isn't hard. Claudio Reyna needs to come out of hiding and say "Look, we signed a pre-contract with Lampard and City signed him in order to help comply with FFP. We didn't think it would be a big deal but obviously we were wrong. Because we didn't think it was a big deal, we didn't share the exact details because in our minds, he was with NYCFC. That was wrong. We apologize to the fans. We're a new club, so we're going to make mistakes, and we made a big one here. We'll work in the future to be as transparent with the fans as we can be.

Furthermore, thank everyone who is still a supporter today. We know we haven't made it easy on you, and we appreciate you standing with us. That's the kind of support we'll need to reach our dreams, and frankly it's the support we haven't earned yet. We will do our utmost in the future to earn that support both on and off the field. To show our appreciation, we will do x thing (and thing involves NYCFC spending money on something for the fans). "

If n0t the above, just please shut up. You're making it worse.

Exactly. EXACTLY. EXACTLY THIS!

 

[MikeDatTiger]

Any attorneys want to take a stab at this? Looks like the answer is in FIFA rules, Section IV Article 18. I didn't even sleep in a Holiday Inn last night, but it looks like a contract could be signed with NYCFC if MCFC's contract concludes before the end of June and with MCFC's permission (6 month rule).

And he could not have had a previous contract with NYCFC till the beginning of July since MCFC's original contact ended on December 31st (unless extensions count for the 6 month rule). And if he did sign with NYCFC in July, is that contract now void since it goes longer than 6 months? Will we get an announcement if he signs a new contract? Maybe they could announce it by the midtown tunnel entrance this time?

http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/administration/regulations_on_the_status_and_transfer_of_players_en_33410.pdf

Well, what the reports say (and this is confusing) is that Lampard signed a one year deal with a break clause that should have activated on January 1. We have no details about how it was to be activated. But you are right, once within the 6 months Lampard should be able to sign with MLS.

 

[Falastur]

Well, what the reports say (and this is confusing) is that Lampard signed a one year deal with a break clause that should have activated on January 1. We have no details about how it was to be activated. But you are right, once within the 6 months Lampard should be able to sign with MLS.

Break clauses are pretty simple. They say that if the two parties (club and player) are in agreement, the contract can be terminated early with no obligation for either party to compensate the other on an agreed date.

 

[mgarbowski]

Break clauses are pretty simple. They say that if the two parties (club and player) are in agreement, the contract can be terminated early with no obligation for either party to compensate the other on an agreed date.

Why do you even need a pre-existing clause for that? If you and I have a contract and we both want out, we just sign a one sentence modification saying the contract is terminated. Would be different if the option were one-sided and unilateral.

 

[MikeDatTiger]

Break clauses are pretty simple. They say that if the two parties (club and player) are in agreement, the contract can be terminated early with no obligation for either party to compensate the other on an agreed date.

Mgarbowski said I was thinking, but it's worth noting that if Lampard wanted to stay, then all he can do is say "I'm not terminating the contract." I'd be more interested in why the FA supposedly needed to ok the removal of the clause, since if it wasn't activated then it's not necessary to remove it.

 

[adam]

Well, what the reports say (and this is confusing) is that Lampard signed a one year deal with a break clause that should have activated on January 1. We have no details about how it was to be activated. But you are right, once within the 6 months Lampard should be able to sign with MLS.

If it was a contact with a break clause, when did it really run till? That's where we could get the 6 months and work backwards. I assume either end of PL season or CL final. If it's CL final (later date) then Frank was free to sign w NYC starting Dec 6th (6 months) with MCFC's permission. Has he signed yet? If not, why the hold up? Based on what's happened already I would think MLS and NYC would want to lock him in at this point. All cheekiness aside, they need to announce his signing again (for real this time) or there is nothing stoping him from going to West Ham or China or who knows where after his MCFC contract is up. (Not like I wouldn't be happy if that happened). I sure hope they are not relying on a handshake and Frank's integrity at this point! I know I wouldn't be too eager to go overseas to play for a fan base that hates me. I feel I can see the car ahead on the tracks and I can't stop this locomotive...

 

[Falastur]

Why do you even need a pre-existing clause for that? If you and I have a contract and we both want out, we just sign a one sentence modification saying the contract is terminated. Would be different if the option were one-sided and unilateral.

Because in practice it doesn't work like that. There are relatively few times when both player and club both want to terminate a deal and are willing to do it under harmonious circumstances. In the vast majority of cases, one side will use legal jargon to force the other to pay compensation. Even if the two sides don't have any beef with each other, the payouts are generally so high that it's simply not intelligent to not assert your rights and force a multi-million dollar payout out of the other party.

If you don't want that situation, you could go for a rolling contract, which is a contract which technically only exists until one party or the other wants to walk out, but those kinds of contracts have very little protection for the players, who can be really badly screwed over by the club wanting to pull out at an inopportune time, and the clubs often have the legal ability to extend rolling deals as much as they want while the player frequently lacks the ability to do so.

You could keep signing short-term deals, but then after a while one side or the other generally realises they are coming out on top in the deal and starts extorting the other side for better terms. Considering that both FL and MCFC thought that they might want to part company at the end of 2014, the best option was to put one, and only one opportunity into the contract for the two parties to part company on financially equal terms.

 

[MikeDatTiger]

Yes, but you can have a break clause for more than just mutual termination. In fact, it doesn't make any sense for CFG to allow mutual termination unrestrained as it could allow for FL to terminate and then play for Chelsea or LAG. The point is that MCFC was ok with FL leaving provided he went to NYCFC. So it makes no sense to have a break clause without requiring some event connected to NYCFC in there.

 

[mgarbowski]

Because in practice it doesn't work like that. There are relatively few times when both player and club both want to terminate a deal and are willing to do it under harmonious circumstances. In the vast majority of cases, one side will use legal jargon to force the other to pay compensation. Even if the two sides don't have any beef with each other, the payouts are generally so high that it's simply not intelligent to not assert your rights and force a multi-million dollar payout out of the other party.

If you don't want that situation, you could go for a rolling contract, which is a contract which technically only exists until one party or the other wants to walk out, but those kinds of contracts have very little protection for the players, who can be really badly screwed over by the club wanting to pull out at an inopportune time, and the clubs often have the legal ability to extend rolling deals as much as they want while the player frequently lacks the ability to do so.

You could keep signing short-term deals, but then after a while one side or the other generally realises they are coming out on top in the deal and starts extorting the other side for better terms. Considering that both FL and MCFC thought that they might want to part company at the end of 2014, the best option was to put one, and only one opportunity into the contract for the two parties to part company on financially equal terms.

I kind of agree and kind of think you miss the point, but I'm just going to stop debating contract mechanics here because that's way too much like what I do for a living. Cheers!

 

[adam]

If you don't want that situation, you could go for a rolling contract, which is a contract which technically only exists until one party or the other wants to walk out, but those kinds of contracts have very little protection for the players, who can be really badly screwed over by the club wanting to pull out at an inopportune time, and the clubs often have the legal ability to extend rolling deals as much as they want while the player frequently lacks the ability to do so.

Could then Lampard's MCFC contract potentially roll till perpetuity? (Say that 3 times fast!) If that's the case, then he cannot ever sign with another club till the break clause is executed.

Yes, but you can have a break clause for more than just mutual termination. In fact, it doesn't make any sense for CFG to allow mutual termination unrestrained as it could allow for FL to terminate and then play for Chelsea or LAG. The point is that MCFC was ok with FL leaving provided he went to NYCFC. So it makes no sense to have a break clause without requiring some event connected to NYCFC in there.

That would make a lot more sense if the rolling contract ran till perpetuity or at least the full 2 years he was said to be contracted with NYCFC.

The only issue being is if the MCFC contract only runs till end of CL final in 2015 (since we've just learned over the last week that NYC/CFG never makes a short sighted move). Then Lampard could truly be a free agent come June unless he signs with NYC within 6 months of CL final (clock is already ticking) - if that's when MCFC's contract expires.

Apparently CFG likes to keep things close to the vest, but there could be a potential shit storm, or it could all be already taken care of. It would be nice to know what's coming from that respect. Lampard really isn't the issue anymore, I could take him or leave him. But I'd like to know if he can do the same to us come the summer.

 

[MikeDatTiger]

If you don't want that situation, you could go for a rolling contract, which is a contract which technically only exists until one party or the other wants to walk out, but those kinds of contracts have very little protection for the players, who can be really badly screwed over by the club wanting to pull out at an inopportune time, and the clubs often have the legal ability to extend rolling deals as much as they want while the player frequently lacks the ability to do so.

Could then Lampard's MCFC contract potentially roll till perpetuity? (Say that 3 times fast!) If that's the case, then he cannot ever sign with another club till the break clause is executed.



That would make a lot more sense if the rolling contract ran till perpetuity or at least the full 2 years he was said to be contracted with NYCFC.

The only issue being is if the MCFC contract only runs till end of CL final in 2015 (since we've just learned over the last week that NYC/CFG never makes a short sighted move). Then Lampard could truly be a free agent come June unless he signs with NYC within 6 months of CL final (clock is already ticking) - if that's when MCFC's contract expires.

Apparently CFG likes to keep things close to the vest, but there could be a potential shit storm, or it could all be already taken care of. It would be nice to know what's coming from that respect. Lampard really isn't the issue anymore, I could take him or leave him. But I'd like to know if he can do the same to us come the summer.

You've hit the nail on the head. The big question here is whether Lampard is committed at all to NYCFC. If not, then it's quite possible that Frank decides to keep playing for MCFC till he retires. If so, then perhaps he comes in July.

 

[LionNYC]

NYCFC fans were made to believe that Lampard would be with the team on day 1. There was talk about him in preseason training with NYCFC and being with the team at the start of the season. That's not happening. We're being duped. Or led to believe in a false reality, which is the same thing. Or completely misinformed, which is still the same thing.

 

[MikeDatTiger]

I'm having trouble following you.

The guy was a free transfer available for free to any club in the world.

So how could any argument be made that the market value of the transfer was anything but zero?

Anyway, your making the point that MCFC's relationship with NYCFC actually makes it harder for them to deal with each other, not easier.

Because had he signed with NYCFC, he becomes suddenly not free at all to sign. Therefore, he would have some value which UEFA could assess.

Now, arguably he would have no value to NYCFC because for that 6 month period, he couldn't play for them. But he would have value for whomever he did play for. For example, when NYCFC loaned Jeb to Norway, they could have (and maybe did) get a fee for loaning him to Norway.

 

[Falastur]

If you don't want that situation, you could go for a rolling contract, which is a contract which technically only exists until one party or the other wants to walk out, but those kinds of contracts have very little protection for the players, who can be really badly screwed over by the club wanting to pull out at an inopportune time, and the clubs often have the legal ability to extend rolling deals as much as they want while the player frequently lacks the ability to do so.

Could then Lampard's MCFC contract potentially roll till perpetuity? (Say that 3 times fast!) If that's the case, then he cannot ever sign with another club till the break clause is executed.

I *think* I'm answering the right question here. If I misread you then tell me and I'll correct my answer.

Lampard's contract with MCFC is not a rolling contract, so I don't think your question is pertinent. Rolling contracts are very rare because very few people want to sign them. They basically only exist at semi-pro level, where players basically drift between clubs at random, or for managers at non-league level. It's virtually unheard of for a professional footballer playing at the highest level to agree to a rolling contract because it just makes no sense for them to do so. It's like accepting a permanent contract at a new company and then going back to them and saying "actually, how about we make it a one month contract which only gets renewed if you want to renew it". Where then is your job security?

 

[S1ARK5]

How about every single statement released by every single party involved? Does he really think supporters and the "media" just made it up? Damn, enjoying MLS was so much easier when I just watched matches and had teams I liked. Now that I've emotionally invested beyond watching my Nats and other compelling players, I've started to understand why supporters hate MLS's executive leadership. It's atrocious from a fan relations perspective.

Makes you appreciate the loud mouths like Peter Vermes, Adrian Hannauer and Bruce Arena so much more. Without guys like them, we'd really be in the dark.

Yes it makes you appreciate their opinions and/rants more but let's be clear. MLS would not be where it is today if it wasn't for the current structure in place and quite frankly Don Garber has a lot to do with how far MLS has come. To his credit for sure. The next part of our growth needs to focus on MLS trying to slowly shift away from the centralized theme to more of an independent operator. Maybe not totally but somehow figure out how each club can act on their own without papa watching over and let each club determine how much they can spend. This will be the telltale sign of how much the league has grown in the next 10 years. These next 10 years are absolutely crucial for MLS growth, we need to be very smart about it.

 

[Midas Mulligan]

Yes it makes you appreciate their opinions and/rants more but let's be clear. MLS would not be where it is today if it wasn't for the current structure in place and quite frankly Don Garber has a lot to do with how far MLS has come. To his credit for sure. The next part of our growth needs to focus on MLS trying to slowly shift away from the centralized theme to more of an independent operator. Maybe not totally but somehow figure out how each club can act on their own without papa watching over and let each club determine how much they can spend. This will be the telltale sign of how much the league has grown in the next 10 years. These next 10 years are absolutely crucial for MLS growth, we need to be very smart about it.

Okay. I agree. We have a section about MLS. I have posted plenty of thoughts about the league, good and bad. This action and Garber's reaction was shit. That's what we're talking about. And it's not the first time he's been complicit in this type of crap.

But I don't think he was. I think he was CYAing after being made a fool.