I'm not going to give Sam Wallace (The Independent, Dec 16) the pleasure of reposting his ridiculous article, but why is it that journos cannot simply understand that Lampard may well stay at City until the MLS season actually starts? NYCFC is going to be training in Manchester. Lampard is going to be training in Manchester. The big difference is, Lampard will not need a pre-season, as he will be deep into the most physically demanding league in the world and plenty match fit! Yaya will be at AFCON for a bit and Lampard, who will not need a pre-season, will spend that time covering for him at MCFC, while his new team will be wearing their runners to get fit and not their studs in the hurly burly that is the Premier League. Why is this so difficult to understand? And, why is everyone making out like this is somehow some perversion of the loan system? Chelsea have teams of players out on loan and didn't want to offer Lampard a contract and then loan him out, so CFG did. End of. It really is pathetic and beyond the level of the most rudimentary comprehension of real life to suggest that either MCFC or NYCFC are going to have any issues with him playing at MCFC, and the manner in which supposed sports journos are making it an issue is approaching absurdity.
They are programmed to write the drivel they do because that is the slant their paymasters want. Compare that to the puffery emanating from the dyed-in-the-wool RagDipperMeedya! Everything is a positive.
Its weird coz at the same time they are linking Defoe, Keane etc with a move back till March. Landon Donovan did it twice, Henry too
Right or wrong, this is making MCFC very hated over here in NYC. Plartly because a lot of NYCFC fans support other PL clubs, partly because they feel even at this stage, NYCFC is just as important in the City Group & partly because the vast majority of them are young stupid assholes.
Can someone please explain to me how City are benefitting from loaning him from NYCFC rather than simply signing him as a free agent as with hindsight we perhaps should have done? If I'm not mistaken, it has already been confirmed that we are paying his wages in full for the duration of the loan. So what exactly is there for anyone to possibly complain about?
Because he's doing well for Manchester City. If he was playing shit and not getting a game,they would all be taking the piss and saying what a waste of money(wages)he's been.
I hope we can even extend him for another season. I read somewhere the possibility of keeping him 18 months, but I don't know how true that is. Maybe this is being optimistic but I think Frank has a couple more years at the top in him and we might be able to have him around for another season as well. He's far too good to have that talent going to MLS right now.
I still think there's a game of chess being played and he'll leave us by March. Certainly won't be here for the entire season. City Football Group need to clearly show the teams are independent and treated equally. What better way than for us to try keep Frank, only for him to go to NYCFC because that was the agreement? This would take the eyes off of us and down the line we can benefit from the partnership, but keeping the first player loaned to us will only paint a giant target on City Football Group and its intentions.
Who are these people and which (if any) MLS team were they supporting before NYC came along? If another PL team came along and funded a team in Boston I'd be nowhere near it!
