carlos tevez is a blue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2010
- Messages
- 16,121
Will he be able to play against Chelsea?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Lampard To City On Loan
- Thread starter rickmcfc
- Start date
A bit of a non story really.Lampard has kept himself in shape well and is a winner so i guess he will be good to have around the dressing room and the younger players as an example.
He will probably get the odd cameo role and can still pick a pass and finish well so may contribute a little here and there.
It is worth the loan as others have said to get up the noses of our rivals and especially the rent boys.Fuck them i WOULD play him against them but Lampard himself has probably had that written in his agreement not to so i guess it is a non starter.
What it will do is get the powers that be quickly re writing the rules to close this loophole.
He will probably get the odd cameo role and can still pick a pass and finish well so may contribute a little here and there.
It is worth the loan as others have said to get up the noses of our rivals and especially the rent boys.Fuck them i WOULD play him against them but Lampard himself has probably had that written in his agreement not to so i guess it is a non starter.
What it will do is get the powers that be quickly re writing the rules to close this loophole.
Why would you even want him to? Chelsea will be contending for the title and the games against them could be title deciding games. For this type of game surely you want your best players playing. Lampard shouldn't be on the pitch in these situations i am afraid. Early cup competition is what i would give Frank.Kun Aguero said:Will he be able to play against Chelsea?
paulchapo said:A bit of a non story really.Lampard has kept himself in shape well and is a winner so i guess he will be good to have around the dressing room and the younger players as an example.
He will probably get the odd cameo role and can still pick a pass and finish well so may contribute a little here and there.
It is worth the loan as others have said to get up the noses of our rivals and especially the rent boys.Fuck them i WOULD play him against them but Lampard himself has probably had that written in his agreement not to so i guess it is a non starter.
What it will do is get the powers that be quickly re writing the rules to close this loophole.
Good points. I can see him coming on to take some set pieces and hoof a few over the top when we need a late goal or two. Beyond on that, a dressing room/coaching role seems about it. But you never know! Stranger things have happened.
As for changing the rules, that seems unlikely to me, otherwise the idea of any form of feeder club/youth team is dead. I just can't see it, mate.
Neither can I see there being a non-playing clause against Chelsea. Rather, he won't get picked ahead of our superb engine room as it is now. There may be an understanding but that would be it. Again, you never know.
Overall, yet another a marketing masterclass from our glorious leaders in Abu Dhabi and their advisers. The 'big clubs' are going to be soooooo pissed about the whole New York thing. It's actually starting to grow on me [and I like the NYC T-shirts and logo] which I never thought it would. The miraculous rise of MCFC goes on. I was one of the dead men 30k back in Div 3 [and at Wembley '99] and so no-one is enjoying our meteoric rise than me, albeit from afar for now. I am now even a fan of a NY club! Imagine that!
cleavers
Moderator
Most of it strikes me as a decent reaction, he wouldn't have had that if he'd gone to the red scouse.Damocles said:http://www.theshedend.com/topic/26120-goodbye-super-frankie-lampard/page-14
Heh
coleridge said:paulchapo said:A bit of a non story really.Lampard has kept himself in shape well and is a winner so i guess he will be good to have around the dressing room and the younger players as an example.
He will probably get the odd cameo role and can still pick a pass and finish well so may contribute a little here and there.
It is worth the loan as others have said to get up the noses of our rivals and especially the rent boys.Fuck them i WOULD play him against them but Lampard himself has probably had that written in his agreement not to so i guess it is a non starter.
What it will do is get the powers that be quickly re writing the rules to close this loophole.
Good points. I can see him coming on to take some set pieces and hoof a few over the top when we need a late goal or two. Beyond on that, a dressing room/coaching role seems about it. But you never know! Stranger things have happened.
As for changing the rules, that seems unlikely to me, otherwise the idea of any form of feeder club/youth team is dead. I just can't see it, mate.
Neither can I see there being a non-playing clause against Chelsea. Rather, he won't get picked ahead of our superb engine room as it is now. There may be an understanding but that would be it. Again, you never know.
Overall, yet another a marketing masterclass from our glorious leaders in Abu Dhabi and their advisers. The 'big clubs' are going to be soooooo pissed about the whole New York thing. It's actually starting to grow on me [and I like the NYC T-shirts and logo] which I never thought it would. The miraculous rise of MCFC goes on. I was one of the dead men 30k back in Div 3 [and at Wembley '99] and so no-one is enjoying our meteoric rise than me, albeit from afar for now. I am now even a fan of a NY club! Imagine that!
Oh yes where we are now and where we are going is dreamland and totally unimaginable in those dark days in division 3 as you say,as Fergiescum said,''Never in my lifetime!'' and i thought that too about us.Loving every second!
franksinatra
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2008
- Messages
- 10,702
Just having read the last couple of posts the reasons for signing him have become even more nonsenscial.
He will play in the early rounds of the Cup: Why would we want him too? Why should he block the opportunity for a Huws or a Zucculini? Is this really justification for paying his wages and blocking a place in the squad of a talented youngster?
He is an influence in the dressing room/role model for the youngsters: On the basis of what? Why don't Chelsea keep him as a role model then? Do City not have enough good role models such as Zaba, Kompany, Silva, Aguero etc. Ridiculous assertion to suggest we would pay him to act as a role model.
For me it is a poor move and gives more justification to the argument that City do not give opportunities to youngsters. Furthermore it is a slap in the face to the likes of Milner and Rodwell and will probably hasten their departures from the club.
He will play in the early rounds of the Cup: Why would we want him too? Why should he block the opportunity for a Huws or a Zucculini? Is this really justification for paying his wages and blocking a place in the squad of a talented youngster?
He is an influence in the dressing room/role model for the youngsters: On the basis of what? Why don't Chelsea keep him as a role model then? Do City not have enough good role models such as Zaba, Kompany, Silva, Aguero etc. Ridiculous assertion to suggest we would pay him to act as a role model.
For me it is a poor move and gives more justification to the argument that City do not give opportunities to youngsters. Furthermore it is a slap in the face to the likes of Milner and Rodwell and will probably hasten their departures from the club.
franksinatra said:Just having read the last couple of posts the reasons for signing him have become even more nonsenscial.
He will play in the early rounds of the Cup: Why would we want him too? Why should he block the opportunity for a Huws or a Zucculini? Is this really justification for paying his wages and blocking a place in the squad of a talented youngster?
He is an influence in the dressing room/role model for the youngsters: On the basis of what? Why don't Chelsea keep him as a role model then? Do City not have enough good role models such as Zaba, Kompany, Silva, Aguero etc. Ridiculous assertion to suggest we would pay him to act as a role model.
For me it is a poor move and gives more justification to the argument that City do not give opportunities to youngsters. Furthermore it is a slap in the face to the likes of Milner and Rodwell and will probably hasten their departures from the club.
I didn't say he was signed/loaned specifically to be an influence or a role model but his stature,standing and the respect he has in the game makes him that and it can't be a bad thing.
On his day,even at 36 he is still a world class player,it is just those days are few and far between now.Rodwell is nowhere near our squad never mind the team and Millner will always be a bit part player,Lampard popping over here for 6 months to keep fit and get the odd run out isn't going to alter that.
Barcon
Well-Known Member
franksinatra said:Just having read the last couple of posts the reasons for signing him have become even more nonsenscial.
He will play in the early rounds of the Cup: Why would we want him too? Why should he block the opportunity for a Huws or a Zucculini? Is this really justification for paying his wages and blocking a place in the squad of a talented youngster?
He is an influence in the dressing room/role model for the youngsters: On the basis of what? Why don't Chelsea keep him as a role model then? Do City not have enough good role models such as Zaba, Kompany, Silva, Aguero etc. Ridiculous assertion to suggest we would pay him to act as a role model.
For me it is a poor move and gives more justification to the argument that City do not give opportunities to youngsters. Furthermore it is a slap in the face to the likes of Milner and Rodwell and will probably hasten their departures from the club.
How much are we paying him?