Lampard To City On Loan

[Peoria Blue]

On another note it also seems we have sidestepped any media attempt to thwart the prem league not have Prem B teams, we don't need this, send half a dozen to America and half dozen to Aus, switch them round after six months and a whole new generation of players have had competitive football abroad under the umbrella of the City group coached by staff who have been handpicked by our management it just gets better and fucking better.

Thought that was against MLS rules?

Not technically against rules, but its tricky. It's probably a case-by-case basis, but they'd either have to be a designated player (a limited number, so 6 would be too many) or clear a sort of bidding process (so a team that makes a claim goes to the end of the line on the next available player, and rival clubs can poach a player) to do it on loan. Last year Derby County tried to move Conor Doyle to the Colorado Rapids, but DC United intercepted him.

I just don't see it. The problem is that MLS has really strict salary budget rules, and I'm pretty sure that players out on loan still count against their salary budget. Thus, if NYCFC were to sign players just for MCFC to loan them, it would end up mightily screwing over NYCFC as they would lose use of the money going to that player's salary - even if MCFC is paying 100% of the wages, MLS still counts them as 100% under the MLS budget. It just doesn't work. If you want to pull off this accounting trick you have to sign the player to a team playing in a league with no salary rules, and MLS and A-League both have salary rules. I think even the Japanese J-League has salary rules.

I believe MLS is also set for a new round of collective bargaining either this off-season or next, and I expect MLS to begin relaxing some of their rigid budget rules, which were established originally for financial survival moreso than as an overriding principle.

 

[Blankomania]

The MLS doesn't start till March, I think. So we would have him for the entirety of AFCON. If Zuculini goes on loan, we'd have Ferno, Ferna, Rodwell (assuming he isn't sold or loaned), and Lampard. And TBH I think Lampard would be well ahead of Rodwell even if the latter stayed.

So you would play a 36 year old who is only here for a month over trying to develop one of our younger players...

Depends on the situation. I wouldn't throw one of our youngsters into, say, a situation like Real Madrid away. And if we have anything like the injury epidemic of last season, we might be thankful that we have a 36-year-old instead of a teenager.

For cup games we might decide to put youngsters in with Frank Lampard and rest our 1st teamers.

So in a hypothetical situation where we have loads of injuries and are playing real madrid before he leaves in january, he might get a game. I'm not saying we shouldn't sign him, i'm saying whats the big deal, he'd hardly get any games

 

[waspish]

If UEFA change rules to not allow loans between clubs that own other clubs it will once and for all prove how corrupt they are and only have and agenda against city!!

definitely, because Watford have been loaned Udinese players and i believe theyre owned by the same guy?

Yep but the following year they changed the rules and reduced How many players you can loan

 

[Blankomania]

Before the start of every season, whenever a player being signed is mentioned there's always the cry of "We've got enough cover in that position".

However there always seems to be at least one game a season where we're short of options. Just to remind everyone, versus Chelsea we had MDM playing in central midfield. Now I know we've signed Fernando, but we will also lose Yaya during a really busy period.

I find it really strange people questioning the motives of our manager and boardroom. More often than not, they call it absolutely right. If they feel Lampard is worth taking a chance on, that will do for me.

Several things
I didn't say don't sign him, i said its a fitness thing and he will hardly play, so it's not a big deal.
People complain on bluemoon all the time about youngsters not getting a chance, just saying.

 

[Corky]

No we don't we play 442 most of the time. So 2 central midfield players. We Already have Toure Fernandinho, Fernando, Rodwell, Zuculini. As i said not a big deal

He can play in the middle of the 3 in 4 2 3 1 when we have only one fit striker, which was frequently the case in the latter part of last season and looks like repeating. For example the Everton away match when Yaya and Aguero went off, and a left back came on.

So you would play him in front of any of the many other players who can do that job, so Milner who we want to stay but is complaining about game time or even giving a youngster a chance...

Milner wouldn't play central attacking midfield, and the 'youngster' you would put on for the game we need a goal would be?

 

[Blueband Brother]

Before the start of every season, whenever a player being signed is mentioned there's always the cry of "We've got enough cover in that position".

However there always seems to be at least one game a season where we're short of options. Just to remind everyone, versus Chelsea we had MDM playing in central midfield. Now I know we've signed Fernando, but we will also lose Yaya during a really busy period.

I find it really strange people questioning the motives of our manager and boardroom. More often than not, they call it absolutely right. If they feel Lampard is worth taking a chance on, that will do for me.

Fair enough. My issue with this move is the media coverage and circus it may generate. I don't want everything to become about Lampard, which the media can easily make it out to be. Also I would rather see the likes of Zuculini, Milner (I will say Rodwell as well but it seems that the manager does not really rate him) getting an opportunity in those odd games or cup games, especially Milner who will again find it difficult to hold places in wide areas. I also doubt that the impact Lampard will make compared to other players competing for a place at this stage of his career in this kind of league will be marked enough to warrant this move.

But like most I am excited about the idea of a player like Lampard being in our books but I remain skeptical about the kind of impact it will have this season. Perhaps a new environment and a new system will rekindle his form and he can make an impact but at the moment I remain skeptical but excited at the same time but in a vain way.

 

[Blue Haze]

So you would play a 36 year old who is only here for a month over trying to develop one of our younger players...

Depends on the situation. I wouldn't throw one of our youngsters into, say, a situation like Real Madrid away. And if we have anything like the injury epidemic of last season, we might be thankful that we have a 36-year-old instead of a teenager.

For cup games we might decide to put youngsters in with Frank Lampard and rest our 1st teamers.

So in a hypothetical situation where we have loads of injuries and are playing real madrid before he leaves in january, he might get a game. I'm not saying we shouldn't sign him, i'm saying whats the big deal, he'd hardly get any games

Hopefully he won't get many games, because if he does it means several of our key players are injured. This loan only happened because he probably didn't want to play in Australia and NYCFC didn't want him sitting on the couch for six months.

Pellegrini has another option, that's all. He and Paddy V will know if a youth player is ready.

 

[Blankomania]

He can play in the middle of the 3 in 4 2 3 1 when we have only one fit striker, which was frequently the case in the latter part of last season and looks like repeating. For example the Everton away match when Yaya and Aguero went off, and a left back came on.

So you would play him in front of any of the many other players who can do that job, so Milner who we want to stay but is complaining about game time or even giving a youngster a chance...

Milner wouldn't play central attacking midfield, and the 'youngster' you would put on for the game we need a goal would be?

We didn't put a left back on in the everton game to get a goal. We did it to shore up the defence.

Milner can play as an attacking midfielder. I would rather iheanacho came on to get a goal then lampard, if we're putting lampard on to get a goal we are in trouble.

 

[Blue Punter]

Before the start of every season, whenever a player being signed is mentioned there's always the cry of "We've got enough cover in that position".

However there always seems to be at least one game a season where we're short of options. Just to remind everyone, versus Chelsea we had MDM playing in central midfield. Now I know we've signed Fernando, but we will also lose Yaya during a really busy period.

I find it really strange people questioning the motives of our manager and boardroom. More often than not, they call it absolutely right. If they feel Lampard is worth taking a chance on, that will do for me.

Several things
I didn't say don't sign him, i said its a fitness thing and he will hardly play, so it's not a big deal.
People on complain on bluemoon all the time about youngsters not getting a chance, just saying.

Why are you so sure he won't get so many games? I can see him playing the League Cup games, champions league and
coming off the bench in the premier league.

In the LC last year V Newcastle our midfield was Navas, Rodwell, Garcia & Milner. I think Lampard could add something to that. For me it's an option that we'd be stupid not to take up. Both the FA cup games V Watford & Wigan, we were crying out for someone like him.

 

[kaz7]

So you would play him in front of any of the many other players who can do that job, so Milner who we want to stay but is complaining about game time or even giving a youngster a chance...

Milner wouldn't play central attacking midfield, and the 'youngster' you would put on for the game we need a goal would be?

We didn't put a left back on in the everton game to get a goal. We did it to shore up the defence.

Milner can play as an attacking midfielder. I would rather iheanacho came on to get a goal then lampard, if we're putting lampard on to get a goal we are in trouble.

You would rather put a kid on to get a goal than someone who has scored the most at chelsea a few months ago?