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.
Player topic: Frank Lampard (2014/15)
- Thread starter cityok
- Start date
Davs 19
Well-Known Member
ArdwickBlue said:Why has somebody added either "Player Thread" or "Player Topic" to various threads?.
Should they not all be either Threads or Topics?.
Do we not all know that they are Threads or Topics relating to players?.
Probably best to pm a mod, but I'd guess that several players had more than one thread on the go about them and it makes it easier to have everything in one place ?
Edit: just seen the post above and it's probably more salient than mine.
Centurions
Well-Known Member
Or we may be getting a new 'Players' forum and it just makes it easier to move them all en masse?Davs 19 said:ArdwickBlue said:Why has somebody added either "Player Thread" or "Player Topic" to various threads?.
Should they not all be either Threads or Topics?.
Do we not all know that they are Threads or Topics relating to players?.
Probably best to pm a mod, but I'd guess that several players had more than one thread on the go about them and it makes it easier to have everything in one place ?
Edit: just seen the post above and it's probably more salient than mine.
Davs 19
Well-Known Member
ColinLee said:Or we may be getting a new 'Players' forum and it just makes it easier to move them all en masse?Davs 19 said:ArdwickBlue said:Why has somebody added either "Player Thread" or "Player Topic" to various threads?.
Should they not all be either Threads or Topics?.
Do we not all know that they are Threads or Topics relating to players?.
Probably best to pm a mod, but I'd guess that several players had more than one thread on the go about them and it makes it easier to have everything in one place ?
Edit: just seen the post above and it's probably more salient than mine.
Fair shout Col.
Bill
Moderator
jamie woods said:I find the criticism of Frank Lampard from Chelsea supporters and some of their London-based journalists unbelievable. Roman would not give him the deal he was looking for and as this season has proved deserved.
Any Chelsea supporter that even contemplates booing him is a disgrace.
londoners are like that. look how spurs fans treated sol campbell, all he wanted was to win stuff.
Pablo ZZZ Peroni
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 19 May 2014
- Messages
- 2,499
Don't think this has been posted elsewhere. Sam Wallace seemingly onside now.
Manchester City's Frank Lampard saga is more cock-up than conspiracy
City were wrong to say Lampard was on loan from New York in August
Sam Wallace
Monday, 12 January 2015
Manchester City were in the equivalent of League One when Steve Coogan was doing the tour in which his comedy creation Paul Calf reflected on his own history with the club. “When I was young I had a trial for Man City,” he told his audiences. “I was terrible! Missed an open goal. Headed one into my own net. I was absolutely shite.” He paused for a drag on his cigarette but you knew already what was coming. “Anyway,” he deadpanned, “they offered me a place.”
That was City as they once were: a punchline all on their own. Paul Calf could never have been written as a fan of Manchester United – they were just too successful to fit the character’s profile. What price Coogan revisiting Paul in this new era for City, and have him wandering bewildered around the gleaming VIP areas of the Etihad Stadium, a cigarette in one hand, a can of Skol in the other, trying to chat up the hostesses in airline uniforms?
It is easy to forget that the new City operation – two league titles in three years, sister clubs in two continents, a training complex opened by the Chancellor of the Exchequer – are still prone to the occasional calamity, the kind which Coogan played on in that Paul Calf sketch. It is no longer what defines them, but it does still happen.
The Frank Lampard saga has been an awkward few days for the club. The drip-drip of information about what turned out to be his 12-month contract and how that reflected on the original, misleading announcement that he was on loan from New York City, the MLS franchise created by City, has cast in a bad light a club that is now meticulous about its reputation. It was, after all, reputation that Sheikh Mansour was investing in when he made the game-changing commitment to the club in 2008.
Yet, for all the cock-up, it is very hard to find the conspiracy. City were wrong to say Lampard was on loan from New York in August and in subsequent conversations with the club, including one I had on 14 December, they did clarify that it was not a loan deal. Lampard had not been able to register as a New York player in August for many reasons, one of which was that the new franchise had not then been added to the Fifa transfer matching system, the global clearing house for transfers.
It was for this reason that he signed a “head of terms” deal with New York in August to come into effect on 1 January. In the interim, Manuel Pellegrini met him while City were on tour in the United States and asked him to join for the first five months of the season. The Premier League only recognises 12-month contracts so Lampard signed one with City including what has been described as an “automatic break clause” on 31 December to allow him to leave for New York. It was that which was cancelled to permit him to play the rest of the Premier League season.
Frank-Lampard.jpg
Along the way, City should have clarified Lampard’s position better, and once they had started deleting web pages mentioning the “loan” word they should have known the flames of conspiracy would be fanned. It was a cock-up. It is City who have paid his wages, which means he will be on their financial fair play consideration. It is City who have had to make the awkward decision to deprive their MLS franchise of one of its two star players, a far from ideal start to life for New York City.
In some respects, the Lampard saga reminds one of the great Rock Of Gibraltar story that plunged United into such crisis. If only the racehorse Sir Alex Ferguson had agreed to co-own with two of the club’s biggest shareholders had been as mediocre as most racehorses owned by the football fraternity. Instead it won seven Group One races and became one of the hottest properties in racing, prompting the ownership rights war that tore United apart. The Sunday Times called it right when it described the Rock as “the horse that won too much”.
Lampard might well be the man who played too well. If he had managed a few substitute appearances and just a couple of goals in the Capital One Cup he would have been packed off to New York this month with City’s best wishes. Instead his goals alone have won City two games and earned a draw against Chelsea. In a title race that looks like it could be decided by the slenderest of margins, City had no choice but to keep him.
That has been tough on MLS but if anything, it is notable how little protest there has been from the league’s most senior figures. There is sympathy for the New York fans who bought season tickets and whose supporters’ group, “The Third Rail”, last week issued an earnest statement of “outrage”. They are the ultimate postmodern fans’ group: obliged to condemn their club’s board before ever having watched the team play.
Lampard, evidently sensing the damage to his own reputation, gave an interview to The Times on Saturday which as good as laid the blame at the door of City for failing to recognise how events might pan out after he agreed to join them temporarily. Yet in the end, he and the MLS hierarchy know that it is City and Abu Dhabi who are picking up the bills for New York and, as ever, they will call the tune.
For City it is one more salutary warning that, seven years into the journey to becoming a European super-club, the scrutiny is exacting and what once could be dismissed as a cock-up can appear a lot more sinister. What would Paul Calf make of it all? Unlike Lampard, of course, Paul never did sign for City. “I was only 16 at the time,” he said. “I wanted to concentrate on smoking.”
Mackay might be gone before FA gets round to a decision
Manchester City's Frank Lampard saga is more cock-up than conspiracy
City were wrong to say Lampard was on loan from New York in August
Sam Wallace
Monday, 12 January 2015
Manchester City were in the equivalent of League One when Steve Coogan was doing the tour in which his comedy creation Paul Calf reflected on his own history with the club. “When I was young I had a trial for Man City,” he told his audiences. “I was terrible! Missed an open goal. Headed one into my own net. I was absolutely shite.” He paused for a drag on his cigarette but you knew already what was coming. “Anyway,” he deadpanned, “they offered me a place.”
That was City as they once were: a punchline all on their own. Paul Calf could never have been written as a fan of Manchester United – they were just too successful to fit the character’s profile. What price Coogan revisiting Paul in this new era for City, and have him wandering bewildered around the gleaming VIP areas of the Etihad Stadium, a cigarette in one hand, a can of Skol in the other, trying to chat up the hostesses in airline uniforms?
It is easy to forget that the new City operation – two league titles in three years, sister clubs in two continents, a training complex opened by the Chancellor of the Exchequer – are still prone to the occasional calamity, the kind which Coogan played on in that Paul Calf sketch. It is no longer what defines them, but it does still happen.
The Frank Lampard saga has been an awkward few days for the club. The drip-drip of information about what turned out to be his 12-month contract and how that reflected on the original, misleading announcement that he was on loan from New York City, the MLS franchise created by City, has cast in a bad light a club that is now meticulous about its reputation. It was, after all, reputation that Sheikh Mansour was investing in when he made the game-changing commitment to the club in 2008.
Yet, for all the cock-up, it is very hard to find the conspiracy. City were wrong to say Lampard was on loan from New York in August and in subsequent conversations with the club, including one I had on 14 December, they did clarify that it was not a loan deal. Lampard had not been able to register as a New York player in August for many reasons, one of which was that the new franchise had not then been added to the Fifa transfer matching system, the global clearing house for transfers.
It was for this reason that he signed a “head of terms” deal with New York in August to come into effect on 1 January. In the interim, Manuel Pellegrini met him while City were on tour in the United States and asked him to join for the first five months of the season. The Premier League only recognises 12-month contracts so Lampard signed one with City including what has been described as an “automatic break clause” on 31 December to allow him to leave for New York. It was that which was cancelled to permit him to play the rest of the Premier League season.
Frank-Lampard.jpg
Along the way, City should have clarified Lampard’s position better, and once they had started deleting web pages mentioning the “loan” word they should have known the flames of conspiracy would be fanned. It was a cock-up. It is City who have paid his wages, which means he will be on their financial fair play consideration. It is City who have had to make the awkward decision to deprive their MLS franchise of one of its two star players, a far from ideal start to life for New York City.
In some respects, the Lampard saga reminds one of the great Rock Of Gibraltar story that plunged United into such crisis. If only the racehorse Sir Alex Ferguson had agreed to co-own with two of the club’s biggest shareholders had been as mediocre as most racehorses owned by the football fraternity. Instead it won seven Group One races and became one of the hottest properties in racing, prompting the ownership rights war that tore United apart. The Sunday Times called it right when it described the Rock as “the horse that won too much”.
Lampard might well be the man who played too well. If he had managed a few substitute appearances and just a couple of goals in the Capital One Cup he would have been packed off to New York this month with City’s best wishes. Instead his goals alone have won City two games and earned a draw against Chelsea. In a title race that looks like it could be decided by the slenderest of margins, City had no choice but to keep him.
That has been tough on MLS but if anything, it is notable how little protest there has been from the league’s most senior figures. There is sympathy for the New York fans who bought season tickets and whose supporters’ group, “The Third Rail”, last week issued an earnest statement of “outrage”. They are the ultimate postmodern fans’ group: obliged to condemn their club’s board before ever having watched the team play.
Lampard, evidently sensing the damage to his own reputation, gave an interview to The Times on Saturday which as good as laid the blame at the door of City for failing to recognise how events might pan out after he agreed to join them temporarily. Yet in the end, he and the MLS hierarchy know that it is City and Abu Dhabi who are picking up the bills for New York and, as ever, they will call the tune.
For City it is one more salutary warning that, seven years into the journey to becoming a European super-club, the scrutiny is exacting and what once could be dismissed as a cock-up can appear a lot more sinister. What would Paul Calf make of it all? Unlike Lampard, of course, Paul never did sign for City. “I was only 16 at the time,” he said. “I wanted to concentrate on smoking.”
Mackay might be gone before FA gets round to a decision
A
A
Anonymous
Guest
dobobobo said:ArdwickBlue said:Why has somebody added either "Player Thread" or "Player Topic" to various threads?.
Should they not all be either Threads or Topics?.
Do we not all know that they are Threads or Topics relating to players?.
Not those who create duplicate threads in order to bash players, no.
How does adding the word thread/topic to the thread title prevent others from starting duplicate threads?.
ArdwickBlue said:dobobobo said:ArdwickBlue said:Why has somebody added either "Player Thread" or "Player Topic" to various threads?.
Should they not all be either Threads or Topics?.
Do we not all know that they are Threads or Topics relating to players?.
Not those who create duplicate threads in order to bash players, no.
How does adding the word thread/topic to the thread title prevent others from starting duplicate threads?.
It doesn't, but my take on why the mods did it is that it gives the bashers no excuse in saying they didn't see the existing thread.
My view is people on here often create duplicated threads so that they ensure they can bash the player as much as possible. I've no problem with someone fairly bashing players in an existing thread but creating duplicate threads to bash inevitably just results constant arguments. This is what happened when a thirds Joe Hart thread was created on Saturday after the Everton match, after that, the thread titles included 'Player topic...' and since then everything seems more civilised.
Be grateful for the mods that you have, when I was a mod (different forum) I was referred to as Hitler.
A
A
Anonymous
Guest
dobobobo said:ArdwickBlue said:dobobobo said:Not those who create duplicate threads in order to bash players, no.
How does adding the word thread/topic to the thread title prevent others from starting duplicate threads?.
It doesn't, but my take on why the mods did it is that it gives the bashers no excuse in saying they didn't see the existing thread.
My view is people on here often create duplicated threads so that they ensure they can bash the player as much as possible. I've no problem with someone fairly bashing players in an existing thread but creating duplicate threads to bash inevitably just results constant arguments. This is what happened when a thirds Joe Hart thread was created on Saturday after the Everton match, after that, the thread titles included 'Player topic...' and since then everything seems more civilised.
Be grateful for the mods that you have, when I was a mod (different forum) I was referred to as Hitler.
Hi Hitler.
Gaylord du Bois
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 16 Aug 2010
- Messages
- 29,303
- Location
- Great Umbrage.
- Team supported
- Glory Hunting Blue. Was Chelsea.
I don't remember Hitler boring people to death.dobobobo said:ArdwickBlue said:dobobobo said:Not those who create duplicate threads in order to bash players, no.
How does adding the word thread/topic to the thread title prevent others from starting duplicate threads?.
It doesn't, but my take on why the mods did it is that it gives the bashers no excuse in saying they didn't see the existing thread.
My view is people on here often create duplicated threads so that they ensure they can bash the player as much as possible. I've no problem with someone fairly bashing players in an existing thread but creating duplicate threads to bash inevitably just results constant arguments. This is what happened when a thirds Joe Hart thread was created on Saturday after the Everton match, after that, the thread titles included 'Player topic...' and since then everything seems more civilised.
Be grateful for the mods that you have, when I was a mod (different forum) I was referred to as Hitler.