Arsenal News
Arsenal News & Transfers
As featured on NewsNow: Arsenal newsArsenal News 24/7

Arsenal News, Only Arsenal, Blogs, Transfer News

Archives

August 2017
M T W T F S S
« Jul    
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031  

After the game, it all depends on what you do with the comments

By Tony Attwood

The FA has a section on its web site called “Media comments and Social Networking cases – Charging guidelines”

It says in part,

The following types of public media comment, including on social networking websites, may be considered to be in breach of FA Rule E3:

  • Comments which are improper, which bring the game into disrepute, which are threatening, abusive, indecent or insulting.
  • Comments about match officials which imply bias, attack the officials’ integrity or which are personally offensive in nature

The way this rule is interpreted has always been a matter of variance and conjecture, but there is not doubt that this rule and its predecessors in place before the advent of social media, have been used to stop people in the game criticising the referees.  The rule is in fact a fundamental part of the secrecy that surrounds the way refereeing works in professional football in England.

The essence of the second part of the rule suggests that if you work in the game you can’t say a ref is biased, although you might get away with saying he made made a mistake.

As you’ll probably have gathered I am thinking of the comments made by Messrs Mourinho and Wenger in their post defeat conferences and whether they might be charged by the omnipotent FA.

But before we go into that, we might also consider something else.  Five years ago I think criticism of referees was much rarer than now, and when it did happen it was crushed by the FA.  Now there is more outspokenness – not because PGMO wants it (far from it of course) but because people are slowly waking up to the phenomenal danger that the game is under, given the existence of PGMO.

It is a revolution that has hardly been commented upon, and it is a revolution that has been slow in gaining momentum, but it is happening all the same.

Of course the FA still does pop up sometimes, as with Brendan Rodgers last year when he said that the performance of the officials in the Liverpool loss at Manchester City was “horrendous”.  He also asked why a Greater Manchester referee, in Bolton’s Mason, was appointed to the fixture.  (That’s one that we all know the answer to – PGMO deliberately keep the number of refs very limited, and employ few (or in many seasons zero) refs from the south, so such clashes of interest are inevitable).

Swansea manager Garry Monk however was not charged after he accused Stoke player Victor Moses of cheating to win a penalty.  He didn’t make a direct accusation about the ref.

In 2011 Ferguson was charged after he said of ref Atkinson in a game against Chelsea, “It was a major game for both clubs and you want a fair referee. You want a strong referee and we didn’t get that.   I don’t know why he [Atkinson] got the game. I must say that when I saw who was refereeing it, I feared the worst.”

Warnock and Moyes have also been charged in similar circumstances.

If you follow the referee commentaries on Untold you know that our concern is that Premier League refereeing is in a shocking state, and there is evidence of downright bias, and the whole refereeing situation is controlled by a highly secretive body that has set up processes, decisions and rules which represent the opposite of openness and which give rise to serious cause for concern.

Those who accuse Untold writers of indulging in conspiracy theories only have to look at PGMO and its secrecy – anyone creating a conspiracy would be proud of such an organisation.

In this situation, I’m personally very glad every time a manager has the guts to stand up and point out something is wrong.  Indeed I would say that if only a few more managers would do this, then the continuing Untold campaign to get the PGMO opened up, could take a major step forwards.

And it does seem to me that yesterday’s games gave us two commentaries from managers that helped this process a bit.

First Mourinho…

In a TV interview he said, “Mr Dowd was too slow to follow that ball. He was 40 yards away, but made the right decision. The decision he was 10 metres away he couldn’t make.”

And later,

“We are speaking about two matches [Southampton and Tottenham], six points. We had one [point] out of six when two crucial decisions would give us six points. What matters are the points. The decisions – the normal tendency is for people to forget the decisions.”

Meanwhile Mr Wenger commented on Craig Pawson’s bizarre decision not to dismiss Florin Gardos for tripping Sanchez, 20 minutes from the end saying, “It was of course a sending-off.  I was surprised, a definite red card.”

The actions of the FA seem to be increasingly random in this field, rather like an out of touch and ineffectual headmaster throwing punishments to naughty school children at random, and wondering why their behaviour gets worse and worse rather than better and better.  So it is impossible to guess if they will do anything about either statement.

But personally I hope that every manager stands up and criticises the refs when they find they are wrong.  It will be one more strand of attack in the battle to get a more general debate on PGMO and its bizarre, eccentric and perverse way of managing refereeing.

Of course we have taken steps forward before, only to find that the clubs trying to edge towards reform back down when they are no longer the ones being challenged.  Just one year ago Southampton (the beneficiaries of one of yesterday’s bizarre refereeing decisions) complained about a comment by Mark Clattenburg during a match to a Southampton player after two penalty appeals were turned down.

PGMO dismissed the complaint and Southampton issued a statement saying that they did not accept the verdict and it would not be “appropriate” for Clattenburg to referee any future Southampton matches.

The FA refused to investigate PGMO or its actions, and Southampton FC made it known that they wanted further complaints against officials dealt with outside PGMO.

Nothing was done – and the matter has passed, but, and this is the key point – it was another assault on PGMO, and I believe it is important to keep on making this assaults, until eventually the organisation is closed down and replaced by something far more open and more appropriate.  It is sad that Southampton were willing to step up to the mark when it suited them, but have since backed away.  Perhaps others will be able to take a more persistent view.

I want to finish however with a different complaint.

I have mentioned before about how Man City appear to have found a loophole within FFP by having Lampard bought by the club their owners control (New York FC) and then loaned to Man City.

Mourinho was asked about this and said: “Lampard? They can bring any player from New York FC. They can bring anyone and nobody will stop them. ”

OK, it wasn’t as strong as I would put it, but the man has spoken out again, and that must be applauded.  Let’s hope Uefa will note Fifa’s ability to stand up to Barcelona over child trafficking, and will themselves have no difficulty in standing up to Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan.

Classic Untold

Untold Index

51 comments to After the game, it all depends on what you do with the comments

  • M18CTID

    Tony, perhaps you can enlighten us all as to what rules City have broken by extending Lampard’s loan until the end of the season? Perhaps you can also explain why you think this is any different to Arsenal loaning players to the MLS club that your biggest shareholder, Stan Kroenke, owns? You do realise that Arsenal have done this, right? Then again, Wenger seemed unaware of it when talking about the Lampard/City topic a few months back so if your own manager doesn’t know perhaps you don’t either 😉 Furthermore, if City wanted to find a loophole round FFP regarding Lampard the surely a better way would’ve been for City to sign him direct from Chelsea on a free transfer last summer and then flog him to New York City FC at the end of this season for £10 million?

    You haven’t thought this through very well have you Tony? It might be a new year but you’re still spouting the same rubbish regarding City and FFP I see – anyway, no hard feelings mate and I’ll be hoping Arsenal do their bit in knocking United out of those CL places come the end of the season 😉

  • Zach

    M18, I think you need to think it though again. I can’t believe how dense you can get regarding Lampard.

    Man City and NY are treated as separate entities and whatever NY spends won’t be treated as Man City’s spending under FFP.

    Sure, City could do what you’ve suggested, but that’s just exceedingly blatant and they would get even more flak for doing just that.

    As for whether it’s different to what you’ve suggested that Arsenal are doing, well, let’s just say that the players are going in the complete opposite direction.

  • blacksheep63

    @M18CTID I’m not sure its up to Tony to judge City’s actions as I imagine FIFA will do that as they have done so far and found City to be in breach of them. While the FFP rules settle in it is inevitable that clubs will try to find ways to test or bend them and that’s ok by me as long as its a level playing field. Personally I think City’s long term ambition to build a community club with a worldwide fanbase is laudable but trying to do it yesterday and complaining that rules are not fair to them is a bit manc tbh.

    Tony has been right about FFP before so I’d hold back on your nose thumbing for a little while yet. As for the nice comments about Arsenal overhauling your Cornish cousins, thanks and same to you – please don’t let the Chavs get their hands on the PL trophy again

  • para

    Worst thing is that our “blessed” rivals the spuds have beaten the chavs 5-3, yes 5-3.
    Now sitting 1 place above us.

  • M18CTID

    blacksheep63,

    Not trying to start a disagreement about Tony and FFP but seriously mate he’s got so many things wrong on the topic – not just relating to City but regarding other clubs too. I do try and stay out of the FFP discussions on here nowadays because some of us are never going to agree with each other but I felt I had to comment on the Lampard story because for me it’s a furore over nothing – the fact is he was available on a free transfer last summer to whichever club was willing to make him an acceptable offer and his full wages are showing on City’s books during his time with us so it’s anything but a FFP dodge. Mourinho himself only ever says things to suit his own narrative – here is a man that last season practically accused City of cheating the rules and threw his support behind FFP yet this season has performed a dramatic u-turn and is now criticising FFP, probably because the penny dropped and Roman has told him he can’t buy whoever he wants these days due to their hands being tied by the regs.

  • KippaxCorner

    Sadly all of the above have it wrong. NYCFC never actually owned the player and he was never on loan.

    It was a short term contract at City which has been extended. He is not on loan from NYCFC (and even if he was, which he isn’t) how is loaning a player who was bought on a free (and paying his wages) any sort of way around FFP.

    As a side note, it’s UEFA, not FIFA that judge FFP. A small but important point.

  • M18CTID

    Zach,

    While Lampard is playing for City, his wages show up on our books. As for what NYCFC spend on transfers, well they didn’t pay a penny for Lampard because he was a free agent so your point regarding this particular player is completely irrelevant – and you have the cheek to call me dense?

    My point about Arsenal and Colorado Rapids is that your majority shareholder is also the owner of a club in the MLS so how anyone connected to Arsenal can complain about the City/NYCFC link is beyond me. You’ve had a clear link with a club in the MLS for a lot longer than City have.

  • Zach

    Yup sure, thanks for pointing out the link. That’s where it ends too as no player from the MLS goes over to Arsenal, while the first big player going over to NY goes to back to the EPL at City.

    As for City paying his wages, what about signing on fees for his contract with NY?

  • Informer

    There would have been no signing on fees, because the MLS buy the contract.

    But the biggest point has been missed and has been confirmed by David Ornstein (BBC) and others.

    Lampard NEVER JOINED New York! He signed a 1-year contract with Manchester City that had a break clause for New Year’s Eve that has simply been changed so he stays an extra half-season.

    So for the hard of learning: Lampard, free agent, joins Manchester City as a free agent. City pay his wages. Lampard joins NYCFC in future. Arsenal fan constantly inventing conspiracy theories ignores this and continues his hypocritical crusade.

  • M18CTID

    You raise an interesting point but how do you know if he received a signing on fee though Zach?

    Either way, I stand by my point that this is anything but a FFP dodge – Lampard has extended his stay for other reasons and that’s because he’s proven to be a very important player who has exceeded all expectations and if I may flip your theory round, if he had been crap and a waste of a squad place, not only would he have been on the first flight out to New York in the new year he would’ve cost us a couple of million pounds in wasted wages – an unnecessary extra cost if you like.

    What I would say is this though – securing Lampard beyond the start of the MLS season could turn out to be a bad PR exercise by City in the eyes of those that run the MLS.

  • Josif

    Mr Attwood, if I remember well, Southampton have had the best (let’s call it that way) foul-per-booking ratio in the league. Perhaps the fact they tried to elevate the whole thing on another level – the club vs the referee – has helped there.

    Here is a question: why Arsenal FC haven’t tried to do the same thing with, say, Mike Dean and ask for his excuse from all Arsenal matches? Of course, Dean is not a disease – he is just a symptom – but that might be a strong statement that Arsenal FC wouldn’t allow Dean-ish misinterpretation of the football rules in our games.

  • M18CTID

    Zach,

    Just to add that it has now transpired that Lampard was never on loan at City and the idea that he was is not true – he signed a short-term deal with us with a break clause that had to be activated at midnight on December 31st 2014. We could either remove the break clause and extend his deal until the end of the season or activate his break clause and allow him to join up with NYCFC ahead of the MLS season. His continued good form led to City extending his contract until the end of the English league season. From the BBC:

    “Lampard ‘signed’ for New York City FC in July but with the new MLS season not starting until March, he joined Manchester City – who part-own New York City – until January. Crucially, this was not a loan deal but a short-term contract signed as a free agent. It is understood the contract was for the entire season, with a break clause that was agreed would be activated at midnight on 31 December.
    City needed that break clause removed if Lampard was to remain with them, which happened on Wednesday.”

  • WalterBroeckx

    M18CTID,
    “Lampard ‘signed’ for New York City FC in July but with the new MLS season not starting until March, he joined Manchester City – who part-own New York City – until January. Crucially, this was not a loan deal but a short-term contract signed as a free agent.

    How can a player be a “free agent” after having signed a contract with a club that is a member of Fifa? You are either a free agent (= having no contract with any club) or you are under contract with a club.

    Whatever you want to call it, it sure sounds dodgy to me.

  • Vintage Gooner

    I am sorry but the BBC assertion is only confusing me further. With which club is Lampard registered as a player? If it is NYCFC then the loan issue stands (and it would be surprising if there were not a signing on fee), however if it is Man City then how has all the media got it so wrong until now? Unfortunately Arsenal fans experience of obfuscation on actual contact situations has left them disbelieving of what they are told. Sometimes it is just PR management and/or lies.

  • Informer – you cite the BBC, and I am always interested in finding the truth, and really not afraid to admit I am wrong (search this site and you’ll see).

    So on today’s BBC web site at http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30648173 – and this is the story that went up today: “Lampard, 36, signed for New York after being released by Chelsea last June but then joined the Premier League champions on a short-term deal.”

    Now if that is not enough, try these…

    Frank Lampard loan shows Manchester trumps New York
    http://www.theguardian.com uesterday

    Lampard … “to leave Stamford Bridge in June, when the 36-year-old signed for New York City before …”
    Daily Mail today.

    Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Lampard
    “Lampard then joined New York City FC on a two-year deal”

    Looks like you are on your on – and not that much of an Informer…

  • Incidentally, I think it must be a Man C tactic in general, because this sort of comment that we have here, in which a source is cited, but without exact details of the source, and then proves impossible to find – was the tactic used when I raised the issue of FFP over Man C. Because of the time involved in checking these claims, I think I will have to say that if there are any more re Man C which don’t actually give a full URL so we can check the source, then we’ll just take it that they are not real.

  • Kippax please see the reply earlier about the contractual details.

  • M18CTID

    Walter,

    It’s bound to sound dodgy to you though. Anything to do with City will be dodgy in your eyes regardless of the fact that you know absolutely nothing about the details. Don’t take this the wrong way mate but you know nothing about the way MCFC operates so your opinion is irrelevant and your assertion that it is “dodgy” is potentially libellous even – you’re a rival supporter with a clear agenda against City and that’s the top and bottom of it really. Happy New Year by the way 😉

  • M18CTID

    Tony,

    Is this your attempt at an early April Fools joke? Talking about a lack of sources yet you laughably claimed that City were ignoring UEFA and never once cited the source of your outrageous claim despite being repeatedly asked lol.

  • Gord

    The following types of public media comment, including on social networking websites, may be considered to be in breach of FA Rule E3:

    * Comments which are improper, which bring the game into disrepute, which are threatening, abusive, indecent or insulting.
    * Comments about match officials which imply bias, attack the officials’ integrity or which are personally offensive in nature

    I have an issue with the second point. If nothing else, it offends all skilled statisticians.

    You cannot just declare a process to be free of bias. Bias is the difference between the long-term average measured by the process, and the true average present in the population. For the situation of additive error, it implies the long-term average error has a mean of zero.

    In football, what does it mean to say we have a mean of 0 for an error? Let’s take offside (or a simplified version):
    1. Calling a player offside when the player is offside
    2. Calling a player offside when the player is not offside
    3. Not calling a player offside when the player is not offside
    4. Not calling a player offside, when the player is offside.
    All 4 processes are binary. The only way they can individually have an error of 0, is if the incorrect part is observed to have a count of 0; the counts of processes 2 and 4 are 0 at the end of the game, for N occurences of processes 1 and 3, the counts are N. That is to say, the process of monitoring offside is perfect.

    An argument many people have suggested, is that it all evens out in the end. Which is to say, that the offside measuring process is equally imperfect for both teams. Declaring a situation offside stops an attack, a chance to score. Unless both teams make the same number of attacking moves, how does one “even out” the mistakes? There is no unambiguous way to do so. And even when the number ofattacks is the same, there still isn’t any way for the errors to even out, as not all attacks are of the same quality.

    In the International Building Code and International Residential Code, there are requirements on the uniformness of the rise over a set of stairs. I believe the requirement is 1/4 inch (6mm), it is small. Why is this requirement present? Because enough people have been found to trip when confronted with a rise larger than that (and possibly to overextend the foot if the rise is less than expect by that).

    No stairs on a field you say. True enough. Let’s say I alter the field adjacent to the touch line in 4 places on both sides of the field: penalty box to 10 yards past the penalty box, 10 yards before midline to midline, midline to 10 yards past the midline, 10 yards before the penalty box to the penalty box. In each area, the modification I make is to install a solenoid controlled set of “speed bumps” that are say 3/8 inch high, high enough to trip over. Smooth profile, coloured the same as the grass, retracted if someone goes to inspect the area, or if the ball is out of play.

    During play, there is a finite chance an assistant referee will trip over 1 of these, and in so doing increase their chance of making an error while in the process of controlling their trip. In a given half, one team gets the advantage near the penalty line and the other near the midline, swapped over half time, so both teams get consistent bias over the game. Both sides of the field, in case the assistant referees swap field sides.

    Want a different scenario? In those patches, the turf in held to the ground in such a way, that there is a fluid filled gap between 2 fluid resistant sheets. The fluid can wet both sheets (necessary condition). Under the sheets, are placed magnetic coils. The gap between the sheets is filled with a ferro-fluid. These kinds of fluids can change their viscosity by many orders of magnitude, just from the presence or absence of a magnetic field. No magnetic field, the turf is not rigidly attached to the ground.

    Again, just by altering the magnetic field, I can introduce difficulties in traversing the area, and hence introduce tripping events.

    For either circumstance, I can introduce selective bias into the game. How then, can the FA say there is no bias just by declaring it so?

    The FA needs a process whereby this claim of no bias can be formally challenged. The group making the challenge shall provide experts. The FA needs to provide epxerts to review the charges. In the instance the EPL is involved, the EPL may want to provide experts to rebutt the charges. In the event the bias issue cannot be resolved, experts from universities such as Oxford can be consulted. The process needs to be available to the public without delay.

  • damocles

    As you asked so nicely Tony:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30647043

    Crucially, this was not a loan deal but a short-term contract signed as a free agent. It is understood the contract was for the entire season, with a break clause that was agreed would be activated at midnight on 31 December.

    http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/12691/9627215/premier-league-manchester-city-extend-frank-lampards-contract

    His initial short-term contract at the Etihad was due to expire on January 1, but an agreement has now been reached for him to remain with City until May.

    http://www.espnfc.com/major-league-soccer/story/2222505/major-league-soccer—-when-manchester-city-contract-expireslampard-belongs-to-nycfc

    Lampard’s presumed signing with the MLS expansion side was announced last July, leading many to conclude that his deal with Manchester City was a loan. Yet when Lampard’s deal with the Citizens was announced in August, the word “loan” was conspicuously absent. The same was true of today’s statement from NYCFC regarding the player’s extension.

    An NYCFC source confirmed earlier reports to ESPN FC that Lampard’s current contract is with Man City and not New York. The source added that the former England international’s current deal would see him stay with the Citizens until the end of their current season.

    But that’s not the issue, the issue is that you are either purposely mischaracterising this because of some inane idea of rivalry or you honestly are writing about things that you don’t know about. THERE IS NO WAY CITY CAN USE LAMPARD AS AN FFP DODGE. City are paying his wages, nobody paid a transfer fee for him, he is registered by the relevant bodies as a City player.

    On most City sites, and indeed most non-Arsenal sites, the general idea of here is that you know your stuff on Arsenal but don’t bother asking about any other club because he is constantly wrong and is more interested in finding the best narrative for an Arsenal fan than the most truthful one. The above is one good example – it would have taken only the smallest of time to read up on something because accusing another professional club of somehow cheating yet you don’t have the integrity in your work to do so. I have no doubt this makes you incredibly popular and beloved by many Arsenal fans and your blog will continue to be successful, you’ll just never be respected as anything but an echo chamber.

  • KippaxCorner

    http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/pellegrini-leaves-lampard-future-open-8373336

    “Lampard is on a short term contract at City, a loan deal from NYCFC never existed so until he goes there is nothing concrete to send him there”

    Either way, there’s nothing dodgy about it, you’re just upset you didn’t sign him.

  • M18CTID

    Tony,

    Can I ask you why you never publish comments from one City fan in particular? Namely the guy who posted the following – I’m doing the honours and posting it on his behalf seeing as though you never have the guts to allow his comments to see the light of day on here:

    “As you asked so nicely Tony:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30647043

    Crucially, this was not a loan deal but a short-term contract signed as a free agent. It is understood the contract was for the entire season, with a break clause that was agreed would be activated at midnight on 31 December.

    http://www1.skysports.com/football/news … s-contract

    His initial short-term contract at the Etihad was due to expire on January 1, but an agreement has now been reached for him to remain with City until May.

    http://www.espnfc.com/major-league-socc … gue-soccer—-when-manchester-city-contract-expireslampard-belongs-to-nycfc

    Lampard’s presumed signing with the MLS expansion side was announced last July, leading many to conclude that his deal with Manchester City was a loan. Yet when Lampard’s deal with the Citizens was announced in August, the word “loan” was conspicuously absent. The same was true of today’s statement from NYCFC regarding the player’s extension.

    An NYCFC source confirmed earlier reports to ESPN FC that Lampard’s current contract is with Man City and not New York. The source added that the former England international’s current deal would see him stay with the Citizens until the end of their current season.

    But that’s not the issue, the issue is that you are either purposely mischaracterising this because of some inane idea of rivalry or you honestly are writing about things that you don’t know about. THERE IS NO WAY CITY CAN USE LAMPARD AS AN FFP DODGE. City are paying his wages, nobody paid a transfer fee for him, he is registered by the relevant bodies as a City player.

    On most City sites, and indeed most non-Arsenal sites, the general idea of here is that you know your stuff on Arsenal but don’t bother asking about any other club because he is constantly wrong and is more interested in finding the best narrative for an Arsenal fan than the most truthful one. The above is one good example – it would have taken only the smallest of time to read up on something because accusing another professional club of somehow cheating yet you don’t have the integrity in your work to do so. I have no doubt this makes you incredibly popular and beloved by many Arsenal fans and your blog will continue to be successful, you’ll just never be respected as anything but an echo chamber.”

  • M18CTID

    Awaiting moderation – sorry Tony but that’s a poor show. You asked for sources and he have you three, all reputable ones – BBC, Sky Sports, and ESPN.

  • blacksheep63

    To @M18CITD and others, in peace. Personally I don’t assume all other clubs are doing something ‘dodgy’ but I do expect that (just as night follows day, and Chelsea players dive) each team will try to do their level best to win (even if this means cheating).

    I don’t condone this or welcome it nor is it a new thing (City fans will remember dear old Francis Lee after all).

    But some of you want some ‘evidence’, some ‘sources’ (and not ones as obviously biased as UA’s). Well I found this fairly easily. I can’t speak for its veracity but it seems well constructed and worth a read http://www.financialfairplay.co.uk/latest-news/man-city-failure-of-ffp-test-a-matter-of-choice

    By the way City fans if you ever get bored of Aguero (and need to free up some of that FFP space) there is always a place for him in north London 🙂

  • M18CTID

    Blacksheep,

    The guy that runs that site is expressing his own opinion rather than stating facts so not what I would call a creditable source in the true sense of the word.

    As for Aguero, I think £60 million plus Sanchez would seal the deal mate 😉

  • damocles

    @blacksheep63 – I can confirm that that particular site on FFP has no veracity and almost no respect. Many times he has been caught editing his predictions after the fact and some of his financial calculations were hilarious. He once said that a 15 year old youth player we’d signed was on £60k a week!

    In terms of where City’s revenue was predicted to be by him, he missed the first year by £32m and the second year by £60m. On Bluemoon there is a thread that uses the Wayback Machine to show the edits.

    For decent FFP commentary, Daniel Geey is a Liverpool fan but also a sports lawyer and as unbiased as they come. Swiss Ramble has just written an article on City that covers their revenue growth, financial position and comments somewhat on FFP (essentially UEFA moved the goalposts after the accounts were submitted)

  • silver

    NYCFC never actually owned the player and he was never on loan.

    It was a short term contract at City which has been extended. He is not on loan from NYCFC (and even if he was, which he isn’t) how is loaning a player who was bought on a free (and paying his wages) any sort of way around FFP.

    deal with it

  • Quincy

    I wonder why Pellegrini said the following recently.

    “It’s not so easy because Frank is a New York City player. He’s only on loan until December so we must respect the other people.”

    http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/sport/football/transfer-news/pellegrini-reveals-lampard-plan-8343633

    Is Pellegrini deluded? Dense? Fell for the Untold lies and conspiracies?

  • Quincy

    Indeed, let’s hear from the man himself:

    “I am really excited about joining New York City FC and helping to play a real part in building something special in one of the sporting capitals of the world”

    http://www.nycfc.com/post/2014/07/24/welcome-new-york-city-frank-lampard

    Why did Sheik Mansour tell his one club that Lampard had signed for them, thus letting them sell more tickets and merchandise, when actually he hadn’t, even though he thought he had, when in fact the truth of the matter is…er? I’m sure a Man $ity fan will explain it to me.

  • Quincy

    Why would $ity do it? Perhaps not for FFP, I don’t know:

    “At the moment the players they sign cannot play until next year so they will register them in the other clubs and can get out on loan,” added Wenger, who ruled out Arsenal employing similar methods in the future.

    http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/28635053

  • Quincy

    Surely, as mere humans, refs will probably have bias, whether intentional or not? Surely, as a closed and secret organisation, the PGMO is incapable of judging its own bias, whether intentional or not?

    What happens when a closed and secret organisation is left to monitor and regulate itself? Has this ever lead to improvements?

    Why should the PGMO be beyond reproach? Have they transcended human errors and bias? If even managers, the people who run clubs, are not allowed to question the PGMO, then who is? Why is any questioning of the PGMO punished, as we would expect of a dictatorship?

  • Quincy

    As far as I can tell, the only source for the claim that Man $ity will be paying all of Lampard’s wages is the BBC article reffered to, and the article only refers to it in its headline. The BBC does not say on what authority it makes this claim. The BBC have been wrong before about football.

    It’s still possible that part or all of his wages will be payed by NYCFC, thus helping Man $ity meet the restriction placed on it’s total wages. I wonder if UEFA go into such details when checking that clubs are FFP compliant.

  • M18CTID

    Quincy,

    You might’ve missed it, and I can’t blame you if you have to be honest, but Lampard has never been on loan at City – he signed a short-term contract which included a December 31st break clause with us ahead of joining up with NYCFC, at which point his contract will end with us and start with them. This is something that has only become clear in the last few days thanks to our wonderful British press incorrectly reporting for months that he was on loan. His contract with us will have been ratified with the FA and Premier League back in August (if it hadn’t then the whole world would know about it by now) and City will be paying his wages mate during his time here. Furthermore, I suspect UEFA are watching us like hawks so I doubt there is anything “dodgy” about this deal.

  • omgarsenal

    Actually I am a bit confused (most of the time-due to age) but who does Frankie boy actually belong to contractually and what is the difference between us employing TH14 once his MLs season had finished? It all seems a tempest in a teapot but FFFP is a total mystery to me as well.

  • WalterBroeckx

    Apparently even Lampard doesn’t know where he really has signed. And the manager also seems clueless. LOL. Lucky city fans know all the contract details. That’s sorted then 🙂

  • WalterBroeckx

    M18CTID,
    Your question about why a post doesn’t come on line is because in that post there have been more than 1 link. The software hold back comments with more than one link in order to avoid spam and advertising. Even for regular readers as you will have noticed.

  • M18CTID

    Walter,

    Fair enough and thanks for clearing that up.
    As for Lampard not knowing who his contract is with, I’m pretty sure he does and if there was anything not clear about it then if you think about it logically that would mean the FA and Premier League would be in on this alleged conspiracy because they would’ve known from the start who holds his registration.

  • Quincy

    Well, thankfully we have M18CTID here to correct the manager of the club he supports. Poor deluded Pellegrini said on Christmas:

    “It’s not so easy because Frank is a New York City player. He’s only on loan until December so we must respect the other people.”

    Aren’t we lucky to have M18CTID here to correct Pellegrini.

    😀

    And like I said, there is only an unsubstantiated claim from the BBC that Man $ity will be paying his wages. As a rule of thumb I never believe the BBC, not even for football.

  • Zach

    Well M18, just explain why NYCFC even announced the ‘signing’ of Lampard in the first place in July ’14 – http://www.nycfc.com/post/2014/07/24/welcome-new-york-city-frank-lampard

    Then come again and explain why everything needs to be ‘cleared up’ in Jan 2015 again, that NYCFC never signed Lampard, and that it was Man City who did.

    But no, you insinuate that Untold is being biased simply because they are Arsenal fans and are against Man City. In the same way, I could insinuate that you are biased against Untold because you are a City fan and are blind against your own team’s dodgy dealings.

  • Zach

    M18, if I may add to your earlier point on Lampard, and flip your theory around, if Lampard was deemed a flop and beyond his years, then City could easily farm him back to the MLS in Jan 2015, thereby reducing their risk. In corporate-speak, it’s like a put option, where you think that your investment is turning bad and you have an option for a clean exit at a fixed date, but in the context of players.

    Sure, people do this all the time in the corporate world because the investor has power over the target company, just like how Man City’s owners have deep pockets and NYCFC is the feeder club for the main investment in the Sheikh’s portfolio of clubs.

    So how is this even less dodgy then?

  • M18CTID

    Zach and Quincy,
    I agree that it’s all very confusing but arguing who owns Lampard’s contract is irrelevant to the point that some have made that this is a FFP dodge. NYCFC did indeed announce his signing last July with a contract to start on August 1st but their season wasn’t due to start for another 7 months or so which meant Lampard had to go somewhere else to stay fit and play so subsequently he signed a new short-term contract with City which will end when he stops playing for us and his new NYCFC deal will kick in then. Interestingly the Daily Mail actually got it close to being right last August, calling it a 6 month deal as opposed to a loan which all the other media outlets were saying so if the DM could get it right last August why couldn’t anyone else? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2717613/Frank-Lampard-joins-Manchester-City-loan-Premier-League-champions-confirm-deal.html

    As for your other point Zach, I’m sorry but I honestly don’t know what you’re getting at. Forget other businesses – this goes on in football all the time. Clubs are always doing deals that contain clauses stating that they can back out of things if they don’t work out. Example: do you think United are going to pay £40-odd million for Falcao if he only plays 10 games this season and is always injured? Or Valencia will pay £24 million for Negredo if he doesn’t impress while on loan from City of all places?

    Anyway, the most important thing in all this has been completely overlooked and that’s whether City asked Wenger for clearance to extend Lampard’s deal 😉

  • WalterBroeckx

    LOL, yeah it sure is confusing. I wonder why…. 😉

    A shame Adam Brogden is no longer amongst us as he wrote some very interesting articles about transfer dealings and he had some very useful information from whatever places he could dig it up.

  • WalterBroeckx

    I notice that in the US there are a lot of unhappy people about this deal also.

    http://www.nycfc.com/post/2014/12/31/frank-lampards-contract-manchester-city-extended

    I notice a lot of unhappy NYCity fans because it seems that the owners have lied to them about Lampard.
    Isn’t that the same owners that own Manchester City? So they new fans in New York feel that they have been lied to.
    Nice owners… I wonder if they have told Manchester City fans also some lies?
    Like in who believes Liverpool owners these days after they blatantly lied?
    I guess Man City fans still believe whatever the owners say.
    Even when it is double speak and all very confusing. 🙂

  • M18CTID

    Walter,

    I’ll happily concede and already have said as much earlier in this thread that this hasn’t been a great PR exercise in respect of NYCFC. They would’ve sold season tickets on the back of Lampard being ready to play at the start of the MLS season only for the situation to change, primarily as a result of Lampard’s surprisingly good form at City. Also, I’m sure this is what Lampard wants as well after realising he still has a lot to offer in the Premier League. That said, I’m sure over time the NYCFC fans will be appeased as their fledgling club establishes a foothold in the MLS and they will reap the benefits accordingly. I wouldn’t be surprised if they sign another Premier League marquee star to offset the disappointment of the Lampard situation – a certain Liverpool midfielder who handed City the title initiative with his slip against Chelsea last season would fit the bill perfectly……

    As for New York fans being upset, some Chelsea fans are even more furious as they see this as Lampard betraying them after saying he couldn’t imagine playing for another PL club. Someone should tell them that things change all the time in football 😉

  • Vintage Gooner

    I find M18CTID comments lucid and interesting although sometimes the supporting evidence is a bit thin and in contrast the knowledge of detail in contracts such as Lampard appears absolutely remarkable. However unfortunately the 8.40 am post carries further confusion. The DM link refers specifically to loan although the article itself does not. Then the article, which is much more photos than text include pictures of FL last summer in NYCFC kit and with NYCFC lapel badge. So my question still remains for me at least – Who has the primary contract and basic registration of Lampard at this point of time? Loans of course are also registered and regulated and this should be in the public domain if not the detail. Please can M18CTID help further.

  • M18CTID

    Vintage Gooner,
    City hold his registration as alluded to in the following club statement on August 6th last year http://m.mcfc.co.uk/?name=mancity&i=12326/1/0&artId=535041
    It just seems to have been overlooked for months by many who assumed it was a loan (myself included!) yet actually was in the public domain since before the start of the season that he’s City’s player.
    I suppose if anyone really wanted an impartial confirmation then contacting the FA and Premier League and asking them to clarify it would be the best way to go.

  • Menace

    To my simple mind it seems that Man city & NYCFC are arms of the same body as Pelligrini who is Man City manager was in NY to take Lampard to Manchester in the same instant that he joined NYCFC. Money has a strange power to control everything. M18CTID has a lot of very convincing scribble but the money says that Frank Lampard (FL aka condom) is giving comfort to one teams fans while screwing the others fans (de ja vue).

    Personally I would love city to retain the title they bought last year. They might have some difficulty with the PGMO but I’m certain they will overcome (meet the price). Arsenal on the other hand cannot compete financially but have super resilience that comes with poverty & intelligence. We also have gullible fans that follow the media rather than the truth that they see (when shown) of selective introduction of new laws by PGMO.

  • M18CTID

    Menace,

    I think Mourinho has already planted the seeds with respect to refereeing decisions and that may have some influence on decisions in their games going forward. It was telling that Gary Neville – usually a good pundit despite his club allegiances – alluded to this and said it’s what certain managers do when going for the title. Without naming any names, he was basically saying it’s what Ferguson used to routinely do and it’s bang out of order. It’s one thing complaining about a decision in the heat of the moment – most managers do that at some point – but quite another to embark on a calculated campaign designed to influence referees. Ferguson wrote the book on it and Mourinho is writing the sequel. Whatever one’s opinion on City in terms of buying success, etc, our manager doesn’t tend to resort to such underhanded tactics. And neither does Wenger for that matter.