Rammyblues
Well-Known Member
For those thinking about Villa he is going on loan to Melbourne.
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
Blue Streak
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 16 Jun 2008
- Messages
- 2,459
I have two Chelsea fans who are good mates, both season ticket holders and they are deeply unhappy about this as I've been speaking with both. They can't believe they let Lampard go and brought Drogba back. And now it looks at though City are getting Lampard for six months they are furious. Both have said he'd struggled a bit with injuries and fitness but still has all the quality he ever had.
kaz7
Well-Known Member
Blankomania said:karen7 said:Blankomania said: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?
So when do you give iheanacho a chance. Alright lad you will only play if we are 5 - 0 up and cruising.
It would be a chance for him to be a hero. Remember when richards scored that equalizer against villa, that was a massive boost for him.
Anyway if we are putting lampard on because we desperately need a goal with all the attacking players we have, something has terribly gone wrong.
Chucking on a youngster when you need a goal over a seasoned pro is mad whichever way you look at it
prestonibbo_mcfc
Well-Known Member
Personally I can see this happening. Don't know where this info has come from. Can't see our club and owners
wanting to get involved in what would be a media circus,and all the FFP fallout for the supposed hard done by.
i.e. Arsenal, Rags etc.
wanting to get involved in what would be a media circus,and all the FFP fallout for the supposed hard done by.
i.e. Arsenal, Rags etc.
Blankomania
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 6 Aug 2006
- Messages
- 247
karen7 said:Blankomania said:karen7 said:You would rather put a kid on to get a goal than someone who has scored the most at chelsea a few months ago?
So when do you give iheanacho a chance. Alright lad you will only play if we are 5 - 0 up and cruising.
It would be a chance for him to be a hero. Remember when richards scored that equalizer against villa, that was a massive boost for him.
Anyway if we are putting lampard on because we desperately need a goal with all the attacking players we have, something has terribly gone wrong.
Chucking on a youngster when you need a goal over a seasoned pro is mad whichever way you look at it
Not if the player your putting on is a striker while the the other has played as defensive midfielder for 2 years.
Personally I couldn't give a shit if he's coming on loan or not, I don't think we need him. I am however enjoying the shit storm its creating on the internet. Specifically with Chelsea fans. They are the biggest hypocrites in the Prem, with an odious manager and a sly slug of a chairman.
Kippax.
Well-Known Member
This reminds me of when we signed Beardsley
nobody can eat fifty eggs
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 9 Sep 2011
- Messages
- 4,677
Yes you're right, cheers.Falastur said:nobody can eat fifty eggs said:Not seen it anywhere but does this mean David Villa can sign for us on loan as well? Might need him...
He's already been loaned out, so no.