bluetegan said:Frank Lampard’s 175th Premier League goal was enough to give Manchester City all three points at bottom side Leicester and keep the pressure up on leaders Chelsea.
The former Blues star has become a vital part of Manuel Pellegrini’s side in recent weeks and with his current loan deal from New York City set to expire in two weeks, reports suggest the 36-year-old is set to extend his stay at the Etihad until at least March.
However, the Independent and Evening Standard’s Patrick Barclay told the Sunday Supplement City have tarnished their reputation over the Lampard affair.
“If Mourinho and Chelsea had done this the other way round, they would be getting pelters from the press and from all the commentators, and rightly so,” Barclay told the Supplement.
“Manchester City have rightly portrayed themselves as a responsible club, a classy club with this new, inspiring training facility in east Manchester which they have been parading this week.
“The image that they are projecting and have been projecting for years is in my opinion slightly tarnished by this affair.”
Lampard left Chelsea last summer to sign a two-year contract with the New York side but joined City, who co-own the MLS franchise on an initial six-month deal.
While the deal is perfectly within the laws, Barclay insists the Premier League champions should not have signed the former England skipper.
“It’s perfectly legal but it’s sharp practice and they shouldn’t be doing it,” he added
“Apart from anything else, if I was a season ticket holder at New York City and I bought season tickets in the expectation of seeing a full squad, including Frank Lampard, I’d feel a bit cheated.
“You can’t hold a gun at Frank Lampard’s head and tell him where to ply his trade if he’s got a choice. But I would have thought he too would realise he signed to go and become available for the MLS season. Is he going to break that agreement just because he feels like it?”
bluetegan said:However, the Independent and Evening Standard’s Patrick Barclay told the Sunday Supplement City have tarnished their reputation over the Lampard affair.
Lampard affair? A decision on his future hasnt been made yet as far as I know.bluetegan said:Frank Lampard’s 175th Premier League goal was enough to give Manchester City all three points at bottom side Leicester and keep the pressure up on leaders Chelsea.
The former Blues star has become a vital part of Manuel Pellegrini’s side in recent weeks and with his current loan deal from New York City set to expire in two weeks, reports suggest the 36-year-old is set to extend his stay at the Etihad until at least March.
However, the Independent and Evening Standard’s Patrick Barclay told the Sunday Supplement City have tarnished their reputation over the Lampard affair.
“If Mourinho and Chelsea had done this the other way round, they would be getting pelters from the press and from all the commentators, and rightly so,” Barclay told the Supplement.
“Manchester City have rightly portrayed themselves as a responsible club, a classy club with this new, inspiring training facility in east Manchester which they have been parading this week.
“The image that they are projecting and have been projecting for years is in my opinion slightly tarnished by this affair.”
Lampard left Chelsea last summer to sign a two-year contract with the New York side but joined City, who co-own the MLS franchise on an initial six-month deal.
While the deal is perfectly within the laws, Barclay insists the Premier League champions should not have signed the former England skipper.
“It’s perfectly legal but it’s sharp practice and they shouldn’t be doing it,” he added
“Apart from anything else, if I was a season ticket holder at New York City and I bought season tickets in the expectation of seeing a full squad, including Frank Lampard, I’d feel a bit cheated.
“You can’t hold a gun at Frank Lampard’s head and tell him where to ply his trade if he’s got a choice. But I would have thought he too would realise he signed to go and become available for the MLS season. Is he going to break that agreement just because he feels like it?”
bluetegan said:“It’s perfectly legal but it’s sharp practice and they shouldn’t be doing it” he added
stony said:As a Chelsea fan, Barclay is absolutely fucking terrified with the thought that letting Lampard go may end up costing them the title.
He knows the loan deal is above board and he knows we could have signed him on a free if we'd wanted.
His apparent disdain and comments about "tarnishing our image" is just bluster to cover up what is really worrying him, and that's Frank Lampard helping City to another title.
The real tarnish is to Mourinho's reputation, and that doesn't sit right with the sycophantic Barclay one bit.
It goes against the rhetoric that him and the rest of Jose's fanboys have been spewing all season.
If we do keep Frank all season and we end up winning the title. Chelsea and Mourinho will look like the biggest mugs in football. Chelsea, Mourinho and Barclay are absolutely fucking shitting themselves.