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.