Tilla explain dis fi mi

[Dunny]

City man dem a real mafia

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/f...a-9966147.html

[Tilla]

Three card man. You remember them back in Jamaica?

[Rockman]

I think City wasn't sure ti whether Lampard would play any significant role to its team so they approached the situation cautiously,ergo the pay as you go..
The problem is the MLS team has to feel shafted,City getting first grab and continues to figure..
The root of it is compensation,and I am not sure if stakeholder NY had any say in the decision.

[Dunny]

I think City wasn't sure ti whether Lampard would play any significant role to its team so they approached the situation cautiously,ergo the pay as you go..
The problem is the MLS team has to feel shafted,City getting first grab and continues to figure..
The root of it is compensation,and I am not sure if stakeholder NY had any say in the decision.

Rockman, it look like you don't understand what a gwaan? What Frank and City have been telling everyone is that he was on loan from New York. How can he be on loan when he haven't even sign a contract with New York? He was always
a City player!!

[Gamma]

that was pretty sneaky .... well outright dishonest ... or was it?

[Tilla]

What I don't understand is how is it they were able to get the FA to sign off on the loan when Lampard is not a NYCFC player? It is a clear violation of the rules and they should be punished. As a matter of fact, I would say dock their points from any game in which Lampard featured.

HL or Bricktop, feel free to add your piece.

[Jangle]

well he signed as a free-agent so it matters not. Chel$ki screwed up.

[Tilla]

You missed the point as usual Jangle. Manchester City said they signed the player on loan from NYCFC. The fact is, NYCFC did not have the rights to the player as Frank was not signed to them. If City wanted to sign Frank, they would have to do so on a contract that was a minimum of 12 months in length. It is only when the FA pointed out that Lampard did not have a contract with NYFC and they have to sign the player for a minimum of 12 months, City decided that they made a mistake.

If it were Chelsea to make such a "mistake", you would see some penalizing of the team.

Yes, City have every right to sign the player who was free. They just needed to do it according to the rules. City wanted to try before they buy and got away with it.

[Paul Marin]

You missed the point as usual Jangle. Manchester City said they signed the player on loan from NYCFC. The fact is, NYCFC did not have the rights to the player as Frank was not signed to them. If City wanted to sign Frank, they would have to do so on a contract that was a minimum of 12 months in length. It is only when the FA pointed out that Lampard did not have a contract with NYFC and they have to sign the player for a minimum of 12 months, City decided that they made a mistake.

If it were Chelsea to make such a "mistake", you would see some penalizing of the team.

Yes, City have every right to sign the player who was free. They just needed to do it according to the rules. City wanted to try before they buy and got away with it.

Sorry Tilla, I am missing something. What rule did they violate? The rule of lying to the press?
You said it yourself - "three card man". Unu ago vex wid him now that the truth come out don't it?

[Tilla]

I thought I was clear, but I guess not. Firstly, you cannot sign a player on loan from a club that doesn't have the rights to the player. I find it strange that the FA missed this long after the player was play for City on loan from a club that could not loan the player. If you ask me, that is a violation of FIFA rules when it comes to transfer and registration of players.

Secondly, the FA and FIFA rules require contract lengths to be a minimum of 12 months. Loans however can be less. City tried the player before they bought him.

[Paul Marin]

I thought I was clear, but I guess not. Firstly, you cannot sign a player on loan from a club that doesn't have the rights to the player. I find it strange that the FA missed this long after the player was play for City on loan from a club that could not loan the player. If you ask me, that is a violation of FIFA rules when it comes to transfer and registration of players.

Secondly, the FA and FIFA rules require contract lengths to be a minimum of 12 months. Loans however can be less. City tried the player before they bought him.

I think that what you heard/read from the press and what actually happened is what is causing the confusion. I don't disagree with what you're saying, but I don't think it went down that way. Here's what I believe all the hubub is about:

WHAT THEY SAID/DID
1. Lampard & NYFC announce he is a City player for 2015
2. Lampard & City announce Lampard will be on loan to City until January 1

WHAT THEY ACTUALLY DID
1. Lampard did not sign with NYFC, but "promised" to sign with them (perhaps if they were okay with him being loaned out to City until Jan 1)
2. Lampard & NYFC announce that they have an agreement
3. Lampard & the PARENT CLUB sign an agreement
4. Lampard is cleared to go to City (presumably through the contract with the parent company
5. City life sweet Lampard, so him tell NYFC to bat-een an hug it up.

Perhaps the violation is with *claiming* the player is on loan, but I am supposing that his "owners" simply had him "loaned" to City. Not sure if there is any violation there, but certainly, they mislead the fans.

[Tilla]

What actually did happen (2,3 & 4) don`t really make sense, but I will not argue with you.
I will just say that the FIFA checks and balances that are in place just would not allow things to flow as you listed.

I will also point out that FIFA regulations concerning the registration and transfer of players deal with clubs and not third parties like parent companies.

I am not upset about what has transpired, just surprised that the ball was dropped by the FA with respect to City's registration of the player. City could sign the player on loan for 6 months, if NYCFC had an agreement with the player and was willing to loan the player to City. If City were going to sign the player directly, then they have to do so for a minimum 12 month contract.

It is funny now I think about it seeing Lampard pictured in New York.

[Paul Marin]

What actually did happen (2,3 & 4) don`t really make sense, but I will not argue with you.
I will just say that the FIFA checks and balances that are in place just would not allow things to flow as you listed.

I will also point out that FIFA regulations concerning the registration and transfer of players deal with clubs and not third parties like parent companies.

I am not upset about what has transpired, just surprised that the ball was dropped by the FA with respect to City's registration of the player. City could sign the player on loan for 6 months, if NYCFC had an agreement with the player and was willing to loan the player to City. If City were going to sign the player directly, then they have to do so for a minimum 12 month contract.

It is funny now I think about it seeing Lampard pictured in New York.

Whether 2,3,4 make sense or not is irrelevant. It appears that is what happened. Nowhere in this deal was a loan ever done by NYCFC and City. All that happened is that they lied to the public, saying he was going to NYCFC, then they announced City took him on loan till January, then they said it was extended. They were forced to come clean when questions were asked about the extension. What really happened was:

"City ... confirm that Lampard was in fact only ever under contract with the English champion. The Abu Dhabi-owned club's parent company, City Football Group, acknowledged on Friday that the announcement in July [2014] was an "error," and that Lampard had previously signed only a "commitment" to play for the New York team from January 2015 on a two-year contract.

City Football Group confirmed on Saturday that Lampard had now signed the same commercial terms that he committed to last year. "

No loan anywhere. No illegality anywhere. Just lying to the public. But me glad, is time the paypas get a slap eena dem face.

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/f...y-9970257.html

[Tilla]

It is funny how you berating the media, but then cherry pick what you want from the same media to support your argument. That is classic Paul.

Arsene Wenger called City on their ploy from the beginning of the season and the English FA only caught on late after the horse had gone through the gate. Anyway, it is said UEFA will be investigating this move as City's attempt to get around the restrictions imposed on them by the FFP regulations.

City were only able to name a 21-man squad for the Champions League and were also fined and restricted in their transfer spending as European football's governing body deemed them to have breached FFP earlier in 2014.

Since Lampard was a free player, City was free to sign him without paying a transfer fee. The violation comes into play where they did not commit to a 12 month minimum contract as required by FIFA (and enforced by the FA). That there is a rule violation if you were not aware of it. And no, agreement with the parent company does not constitute contractal agreement between player and club.

Let us see the outcome of this if they are indeed investigated. I am not sure though that UEFA could charge them for anything as their rules may not have covered City's approach to beating the system.

Anyway, I am done with this discussion. Not sure why you and me arguing over this. I was hoping to see HL or Bricktop take a swing instead, but the two avoid this thread like it is the Ebola.

[Paul Marin]

It is funny how you berating the media, but then cherry pick what you want from the same media to support your argument. That is classic Paul.

Arsene Wenger called City on their ploy from the beginning of the season and the English FA only caught on late after the horse had gone through the gate. Anyway, it is said UEFA will be investigating this move as City's attempt to get around the restrictions imposed on them by the FFP regulations.



Since Lampard was a free player, City was free to sign him without paying a transfer fee. The violation comes into play where they did not commit to a 12 month minimum contract as required by FIFA (and enforced by the FA). That there is a rule violation if you were not aware of it. And no, agreement with the parent company does not constitute contractal agreement between player and club.

Let us see the outcome of this if they are indeed investigated. I am not sure though that UEFA could charge them for anything as their rules may not have covered City's approach to beating the system.

Anyway, I am done with this discussion. Not sure why you and me arguing over this. I was hoping to see HL or Bricktop take a swing instead, but the two avoid this thread like it is the Ebola.

I am not arguing. Only trying to show you that the way in which things unfolded (as I understand it) don't have a "loan" element. While they (Lampard, City & NYCFC) may have SAID that there was a loan, it appears that is not the case - said another way - an investigation will show a 12 month contract between City and Lampard...even though they told the media it was a loan. Unless there is a rule that says you can't mislead the media, I don't know what they violated.

Part of the reason they were able to "get away with this" is because these were not arm's length transactions. And just to be clear I am not "berating the media" only pointing out that "certain elements" (read the trash journalists and eediat bloggers) have gotten their comeuppance. Sources are either reliable or not. I try to stick to ones that are (unlike heX who relies solely on the blogosphere ). Hope that helps.