Manchester City facing Financial Fair Play sanctions

[Ronetta]

I've already covered why I think the clubs lied over it, but the lies to the press have nothing to do with the reality of Lampard's contract so it's a silly debate. Lampard, regardless of what crap was fed to the public, was a City player just as Kompany, Aguero and Silva are City players.

Basically, the most likely reason is Lampard only had the offer to join City AFTER signing for NYCFC and been paraded as their player.

If he'd signed an actual contract with NYCFC first, then why wouldn't they just have loaned him to us as per the information put out?

Wouldn't have made any sense to cancel the NYCFC contract and get him to sign a 1 year City contract when - at the time - we were expecting him to be gone by end December.

A straightforward 4 or 5 month loan from NYCFC to City would have been all that was required at the time.

 

[BobbyManc]

If he'd signed an actual contract with NYCFC first, then why wouldn't they just have loaned him to us as per the information put out?

Because he had only signed a pre-contract agreement with NYCFC and was not actually their player.

 

[Ronetta]

It's quite simple. CFG wanted to use Lampard to sell season tickets for NYCFC. He signed a 12 month contract with City with a break clause after 6 months which would have enabled him to Join NYCFC in Jan 2015.

However, the plan changed as Manuel Pellegrini wanted to keep him for the whole season and so the break clause was removed and Lampard has now signed a contract to join NYCFC in July once his City contract has ended.

I think you may well be right, and if so, I think that's the worst thing about it - that they *potentially* misled a load of american supporters. A nation not familiar with class action lawsuits and reluctant to go to litigation

 

[antihenry]

Because he had only signed a pre-contract agreement with NYCFC and was not actually their player.

Yes, that's the story he's telling now.

How many times are we going to do this? NYCFC announced on their website that Lampard signed a two year contract starting last August. Right after that they included him in their roster, go look at the site. Did they just make up a contract that never existed? What for? And if it was a mistake, why wasn't it corrected?

Then City insisted until January he was a NYCFC player on loan at City only to change their story now. Just a series of errors, that's all. A whole bunch of people developed a curious case of amnesia. What a joke.

 

[BobbyManc]

Yes, that's the story he's telling now.

How many times are we going to do this? NYCFC announced on their website that Lampard signed a two year contract starting last August. Right after that they included him in their roster, go look at the site. Did they just make up a contract that never existed? What for? And if it was a mistake, why wasn't it corrected?

Then City insisted until January he was a NYCFC player on loan at City only to change their story now. Just a series of errors, that's all. A whole bunch of people developed a curious case of amnesia. What a joke.

This is just ridiculously tedious and boring now. It's not hard to comprehend that all parties involved have lied to the press and to the public. The only thing that actually matters though is that Lampard signed a 12-month contract with City as a free agent, unattached to any other club. Whatever you have read and believe, that is a stone cold fact.

 

[Spiersey]

This is just ridiculously tedious and boring now. It's not hard to comprehend that all parties involved have lied to the press and to the public. The only thing that actually matters though is that Lampard signed a 12-month contract with City as a free agent, unattached to any other club. Whatever you have read and believe, that is a stone cold fact.

What's your theory as to why they would lie and not just have the deal go through as they said? There isn't any benefit to having Lampard as their own player asides from being able to keep him another year is there?

 

[BobbyManc]

What's your theory as to why they would lie and not just have the deal go through as they said? There isn't any benefit to having Lampard as their own player asides from being able to keep him another year is there?

Already covered this in the thread about Lampard. Basically, City only decided to sign Lampard AFTER he was paraded as a NYCFC player and had supposedly signed an agreement with them. Everything that came after that was intended to save face, essentially.

 

[Ronetta]

Already covered this in the thread about Lampard. Basically, City only decided to sign Lampard AFTER he was paraded as a NYCFC player and had supposedly signed an agreement with them. Everything that came after that was intended to save face, essentially.

You might be right Bobby, but unless you've seen some evidence that isn't in the public domain, isn't the above just speculation? You seem to be stating these things as if they are indisputable facts.

 

[BobbyManc]

You might be right Bobby, but unless you've seen some evidence that isn't in the public domain, isn't the above just speculation? You seem to be stating these things as if they are indisputable facts.

My post was in response to someone asking for my theory. So no, my response is not intended to be read as an indisputable fact.

But, the evidence in the public domain all suggests the only plausible scenario for requiring the cover-up was that Lampard was signed by City only after he was unveiled as a NYCFC signing.

 

[Ronetta]

My post was in response to someone asking for my theory. So no, my response is not intended to be read as an indisputable fact.

But, the evidence in the public domain all suggests the only plausible scenario for requiring the cover-up was that Lampard was signed by City only after he was unveiled as a NYCFC signing.

Fair enough. I don't think it's the only plausible scenario by any means, but it is plausible.