Was Nycfc Really Treated As A Second Rate Club

MikeDatTiger

Registered
Mar 21, 2014
1,372
1,471
143
New Orleans, Louisiana

mgarbowski

Registered
Elite Donor
Donor
Seasoned Supporter
Jul 16, 2014
15,896
45,335
353
Queens, NY
mgarbowski.com
It seems to me you go the long way round to avoid the Occam's Razor simplest explanation: that they signed Lampard to CFG instead of NYCFC because they anticipated this scenario and wanted the option to keep FL in MC. In any event, none of your proffered alternative explanations-- even if they turn out to be true -- is an excuse for an announcement by NYCFC purporting to sign Lampard when that was a lie. Not a contingent lie. Not a lie that developed over time, when they were tempted by the way things unfolded. It was a lie then, the moment they put it on the website.
 

MikeDatTiger

Registered
Mar 21, 2014
1,372
1,471
143
New Orleans, Louisiana
It seems to me you go the long way round to avoid the Occam's Razor simplest explanation: that they signed Lampard to CFG instead of NYCFC because they anticipated this scenario and wanted the option to keep FL in MC. In any event, none of your proffered alternative explanations-- even if they turn out to be true -- is an excuse for an announcement by NYCFC purporting to sign Lampard when that was a lie. Not a contingent lie. Not a lie that developed over time, when they were tempted by the way things unfolded. It was a lie then, the moment they put it on the website.

Well, I made no apologies for the lying. That's clearly inexcusable.

As for wanting the option to keep him, I find it slightly remote. Remember, when NYCFC signed Lampard there were more than a few voices asking whether he was too washed up for MLS, much less a side with serious designs on the EPL and UCL. I think if MCFC anticipated Lampard not starting in March back in July, they don't do the presentation the way they did. After all, as soon as Lampard became doubtful, notice he disappeared from the holiday video and pretty much all the promos they could.

As for Villa & Lampard being different, I think the reason is simple: Villa went to Melbourne, Lampard went to MCFC. CFG didn't have to worry about UEFA using FFP as an excuse to poke around with Villa but since Villa filled up the guest spot in the A League, Lampard needed to go to Manchester (which always made more sense anyway since Frank already lived in England). With MCFC signing him, UEFA couldn't deduct any value MCFC should have paid NYCFC for a loan. Moreover (and this hasn't been mentioned yet, which surprises me), MCFC could possibly claim that Lampard was on loan from Jan-May 2015 and hence get a credit to use for FFP purposes.

So I really thing CFG trying to be too cute in this scenario fits best with all the facts we know so far.
 

Fantazma

Registered
Seasoned Supporter
Nov 9, 2014
8,242
9,705
303
i wonder if there will be changes from UEFA regarding FFP with this going on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kjbert

Fantazma

Registered
Seasoned Supporter
Nov 9, 2014
8,242
9,705
303
Just curious, why? MCFC had him signed the whole time and he wasn't on loan. Shitty end of the stick for us in NY but it didn't affect FFP.
i dont really think anything will change unless somehow man city pisses off uefa, or somehow other big clubs start complaining and pushing for bigger punishment even if FFP wasnt in play.

The whole ffp thing has been a joke from the beginning and clubs have been able to work around it and not talking about this situation just in general.
 

MikeDatTiger

Registered
Mar 21, 2014
1,372
1,471
143
New Orleans, Louisiana
i dont really think anything will change unless somehow man city pisses off uefa, or somehow other big clubs start complaining and pushing for bigger punishment even if FFP wasnt in play.

The whole ffp thing has been a joke from the beginning and clubs have been able to work around it and not talking about this situation just in general.

Well, I think UEFA has long since decided that PSG and MCFC were going to be the poster boys for its FFP crusade. We'll see how much fight UEFA still has in them on this, but MCFC is likely to meet its requirements this time around judging by the reports. PSG might become the lone target, but UEFA is still scared of doing anything meaningful lest the clubs finally deciding to put this issue into court (where spoiler,UEFA will lose)
 
  • Like
Reactions: AndreT_NY

mgarbowski

Registered
Elite Donor
Donor
Seasoned Supporter
Jul 16, 2014
15,896
45,335
353
Queens, NY
mgarbowski.com
Well, I made no apologies for the lying. That's clearly inexcusable.

As for wanting the option to keep him, I find it slightly remote. Remember, when NYCFC signed Lampard there were more than a few voices asking whether he was too washed up for MLS, much less a side with serious designs on the EPL and UCL. I think if MCFC anticipated Lampard not starting in March back in July, they don't do the presentation the way they did. After all, as soon as Lampard became doubtful, notice he disappeared from the holiday video and pretty much all the promos they could.

As for Villa & Lampard being different, I think the reason is simple: Villa went to Melbourne, Lampard went to MCFC. CFG didn't have to worry about UEFA using FFP as an excuse to poke around with Villa but since Villa filled up the guest spot in the A League, Lampard needed to go to Manchester (which always made more sense anyway since Frank already lived in England). With MCFC signing him, UEFA couldn't deduct any value MCFC should have paid NYCFC for a loan. Moreover (and this hasn't been mentioned yet, which surprises me), MCFC could possibly claim that Lampard was on loan from Jan-May 2015 and hence get a credit to use for FFP purposes.

So I really thing CFG trying to be too cute in this scenario fits best with all the facts we know so far.
Fair points Mike. And just in case I wasn't clear, I never thought you meant to excuse the lying.
EDIT TYPO
 

Drainyoo

Registered
Donor
Seasoned Supporter
May 27, 2014
2,159
3,752
323
NYC
Did you read what I wrote?

I did, but don't agree with your view. IMHO, CFG, MCFC and Lampard all knew what they were doing, and they took NYCFC for a nice ride. They couldn't do much being the baby MLS club. NYCFC is at fault for lying to us about how bad they got screwed by CFG, MCFC and Lampard.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Paul and BxLio91

Kjbert

Registered
Seasoned Supporter
Apr 24, 2014
12,088
17,197
303
37
Yes. Once they chose to let Frank Lampard stay with MCFC, they made a decision as to which club was more important.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BxLio91