The Frank Lampard thread

[heart_fan10]

now i really hope we pump sydney in the ffa cup and round 1 just to stick it up the FFA

[jw1739]

The only way I see around this for CFG is to sign both Lampard and Xavi and let the two of them work out a deal to who goes where

Many a sensible idea quoted in jest. Whoever comes here could stay until end of our season, and would be fully match fit to go to NYC only a few weeks into their season.

[Red or Dead]

 

 

Yeah I know. love the song so give me any reason to post it and I will

So according to SST the club is in the middle of an argument with the FFA about Lampard. Apparently the FFA are trying to block him just comming on a short loan deal rather than a Marquee. But the club is saying how can he be our Marquee if he is only here for X number of games etc etc. SST also said once you sign a marquee for the season, then thats it, no matter how many games they play

Forgive my ignorance what is sst?

 

Soccer Stoppage Time - it's a radio show on 2MM every Monday night

[drewmelbcity]

The only way I see around this for CFG is to sign both Lampard and Xavi and let the two of them work out a deal to who goes where

Many a sensible idea quoted in jest. Whoever comes here could stay until end of our season, and would be fully match fit to go to NYC only a few weeks into their season. Essentially they would be playing for a year straight though, not even the fittest blokes could be up to that Edited July 8, 2014 by drewmelbcity

[Heart_fan]

The FFA have been great at applying double standards to any decision.

If your team is based outside NSW, you might as well forget any favourable treatment, but if you are from there it's easy access to whatever you want.

If they block Lampard coming as a loan player, a blanket ban on all loan players should be applied, but we all know as soon as WSW or SFC want to do this, the FFA will spin it to allow them.

If this is true, I can imagine CFG pulling their hair out at having walls put in their way at every turn.

[Murfy1]

Now I don't know much about SST but they do have a bit of reputation for inaccuracy.  Wouldn't get my knickers in a knot just yet.

 

I'm thinking this.

 

There have been multiple reports & suggestions that Lampard is going to NYCFC, from the likes of Darren Lewis (who has connections with Australian football [a weekly talking head on a Fox Sports show]) with the Mirror, and Davutovic of the Herald Sun, who reported very recently "Ok, my understanding is that the Frank Lampard deal is not done but negotiations are well advanced. He would probably come on a loan stint."

 

Also, Lampard said a month ago that he would never join another EPL club and play against Chelsea. So the alternatives of Lampard ending up somewhere else besides NYCFC and our club for a period are actually pretty limited.

 

I reckon they've just been dotting the i's and crossing the t's on the Lampard deal, just sorting out formalities with his contract, and that's why it's taken so long. And I reckon SST have just taken advantage of this situation, and have gone speculating on the hot topic of a Lampard move to the A-League (it's probably low risk as well, because information about nitty-gritty contract deals and the to-ings and fro-ings of recent days will probably never surface. So SST can say what they want because it can't be readily disproven).  

 

Details about any Lampard deal are above their pay grade. I wouldn't pay attention to what SST have to say on the matter. 

Edited July 8, 2014 by Murfy1

[mulhollanddrive]

Lampard hasn't even agreed to sign with NYCFC yet, but FFA are blocking him? 

 

There's a reason nobody knows what SST stands for.

[Heart_fan]

The interesting thing is that the media have speculated on this Lampard deal for a couple of weeks now, with nothing much to go on.

Whether some are trying to piece together a story or not would be interesting to know, but without Lampard signing a deal at NYCFC, there is no story. That confirmation is required first and then the wait will begin.

The only thing that may be possible is that the loan deal is a key part of the deal to ensure he is playing, with the FFA approval required first. There has to be other options available though, including Japan if we are blocked.

[n i k o]

Lampard marquee for us....guest player for New York????

Edited July 8, 2014 by n i k o

[LR9]

Lampard marquee for us....guest player for New York????

MLS don't do 'guest' stints.

[KSK_47]

Could we pay Lampard under the cap then "sell" him to New York and just pay out his contract with us?

[cadete]

Could we pay Lampard under the cap then "sell" him to New York and just pay out his contract with us?

This - It is what they call a "Buy Back" in the Racing Industry where a Breeder basically sells a horse back to themselves under another name. 

[HeartFc]

That's cheating! (Unless you're Sydney fc)

Edited July 9, 2014 by HeartFc

[jw1739]

Could we pay Lampard under the cap then "sell" him to New York and just pay out his contract with us?

I cannot see how that can be prevented. Perfectly legitimate transaction by NYCity to pay Melbourrne City for a player they want.

[Nate]

Am I the only one who's not really that keen on securing Lampard through these questionable kinds of transactions involving NYC? 

Obviously there are loopholes in the rules outlined for the A-League that we could potentially exploit due to our fortunate ownership circumstances but it goes entirely against what the salary cap was implemented for in the first place.

 

Would rather win based on merit to be honest.

[HeartFc]

Would you say the same thing when we're up 2-0 in the granny or deep into the ACL?

[Nate]

Would you say the same thing when we're up 2-0 in the granny or deep into the ACL?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

no

[drewmelbcity]

Would you say the same thing when we're up 2-0 in the granny or deep into the ACL?

Would be the last thing on my mind

[jw1739]

Am I the only one who's not really that keen on securing Lampard through these questionable kinds of transactions involving NYC? 

Obviously there are loopholes in the rules outlined for the A-League that we could potentially exploit due to our fortunate ownership circumstances but it goes entirely against what the salary cap was implemented for in the first place.

 

Would rather win based on merit to be honest.

What is questionable about, for example, a player signing a one-year contract with Club A and then during that season Club B paying a transfer fee for that player provided the "transfer window" regulations are met? I can see nothing against New York City signing a player from Melbourne City or any other club during the US pre-season window, which is I think 12 February-6 May.

 

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfer_window

[Nate]

I was referring more to the idea of having him loaned to us from NYC and being paid minimum wage here with "New York City" footing the majority of the bill. I just think it's an unfair advantage that we have due to the nature of our little football family.

 

But at the end of the day I'm going to agree with HeartFc, I won't care a single bit once the season arrives.

[SF33]

I was referring more to the idea of having him loaned to us from NYC and being paid minimum wage here with "New York City" footing the majority of the bill. I just think it's an unfair advantage that we have due to the nature of our little football family.

 

But at the end of the day I'm going to agree with HeartFc, I won't care a single bit once the season arrives.

 

No, I'm with you.

 

But, I think that can be justified by saying that it's up to the league to close such loopholes, rather than our club not to exploit them. The league should have envisioned such scenarios when the discussions of a sale and alignment between Manchester, New York and Melbourne first came up. If they didn't, or they did and ignored it, stiff shit, I say.

[Kiro Kompiro]

I was referring more to the idea of having him loaned to us from NYC and being paid minimum wage here with "New York City" footing the majority of the bill. I just think it's an unfair advantage that we have due to the nature of our little football family.

 

But at the end of the day I'm going to agree with HeartFc, I won't care a single bit once the season arrives.

 

 

Its difficult to insist on "arms length" or market rates because we are dealing with completely different markets.  There are A-League players who would be worth double or triple if they played in Europe, there are are European players who would be worth a quarter of what they get if they were A-League players. 

 

Having said that Lampard on 50k per season or about $1800 per game is a blatant act of skirting the salary cap.

 

 

[jw1739]

 

I was referring more to the idea of having him loaned to us from NYC and being paid minimum wage here with "New York City" footing the majority of the bill. I just think it's an unfair advantage that we have due to the nature of our little football family.

 

But at the end of the day I'm going to agree with HeartFc, I won't care a single bit once the season arrives.

 

No, I'm with you.

 

But, I think that can be justified by saying that it's up to the league to close such loopholes, rather than our club not to exploit them. The league should have envisioned such scenarios when the discussions of a sale and alignment between Manchester, New York and Melbourne first came up. If they didn't, or they did and ignored it, stiff shit, I say.

 

Fair enough.

 

My understanding is that the rules concerning loan players are about to be codified anyway.

 

Having said that, I'll make two further points. A-League rules should apply to all the A-League clubs equally, and not be different simply because a particular club is part of a family of clubs owned under a single umbrella.

 

And the A-League really needs to decide whether it's "open for business" or not. The more restrictions are placed on potential investors (who may be owners, coaches, players and administrators) the less likely they are going to be to bother with the A-League at all, and they'll simply go somewhere else.

[xXJawsaXx]

Even though I disagree with some of the tight rules that the FFA has, I am uneasy with the idea about winning titles because we found ways to cheat the cap, exploit loopholes, etc. The onus is on the FFA now to either close those loopholes so that 'creative accounting' won't and can't happen or open things up a bit.

[Tesla]

How about the FFA just get rid of the salary cap and then all this guest player, marquee, who pays loan wages, etc. crap goes out the window, and the league also gets stronger.

[belaguttman]

 

I was referring more to the idea of having him loaned to us from NYC and being paid minimum wage here with "New York City" footing the majority of the bill. I just think it's an unfair advantage that we have due to the nature of our little football family.

 

But at the end of the day I'm going to agree with HeartFc, I won't care a single bit once the season arrives.

 

No, I'm with you.

 

But, I think that can be justified by saying that it's up to the league to close such loopholes, rather than our club not to exploit them. The league should have envisioned such scenarios when the discussions of a sale and alignment between Manchester, New York and Melbourne first came up. If they didn't, or they did and ignored it, stiff shit, I say.

 

No, I think that we should act ethically because it is in our long term interests to do so, not do things if we can get away with them.

Edited July 9, 2014 by belaguttman

[Nate]

The league would capitulate, enough clubs struggle as it is with the aid of the salary cap.

[HeartFc]

How about the FFA just get rid of the salary cap and then all this guest player, marquee, who pays loan wages, etc. crap goes out the window, and the league also gets stronger.

We'd be about $1.20 to win the league every season.

[cadete]

How about the FFA just get rid of the salary cap and then all this guest player, marquee, who pays loan wages, etc. crap goes out the window, and the league also gets stronger.

The whole league is an expression of why "Command Economics" is retarded as that is what the Cap does so that all players involved can be professional.

 

If players were paid according to their value to the team like back in the NSL days then list fillers like Hoffman and Velphi would def only be Semi-Professional with top five/six best players at the club making up most of the Total Player Wages at the club.

 

NOTE: I am sure someone with your training knows all and more about this than me.

Edited July 9, 2014 by cadete

[belaguttman]

How about the FFA just get rid of the salary cap and then all this guest player, marquee, who pays loan wages, etc. crap goes out the window, and the league also gets stronger.

Perhaps there are advantages and disadvantages of laissez faire economics applied to football clubs. The strong few become stronger at the expense of the weaker clubs, there is less overall competition and the overall standard becomes very patchy and uneven. Under our controlled approach the improvement will be slower but more even across the clubs and with greater depth in the squads. I prefer what we are doing now but it is a matter of preference.

[Tesla]

The league would capitulate, enough clubs struggle as it is with the aid of the salary cap.

I've previously explained in quite a bit of detail on this forum why this is completely incorrect. Of the two reasons why a salary cap is promoted, equality and financial stability, it only achieves equality, it does nothing to help the financial stability of clubs.

Unless by struggle, you mean on field, then that is entirely possibly, I just assume you mean financially.

 

How about the FFA just get rid of the salary cap and then all this guest player, marquee, who pays loan wages, etc. crap goes out the window, and the league also gets stronger.

The whole league is an expression of why "Command Economics" is retarded as that is what the Cap does so that all players involved can be professional.

 

If players were paid according to their value to the team like back in the NSL days then list fillers like Hoffman and Velphi would def only be Semi-Professional with top five/six best players at the club making up most of the Total Player Wages at the club.

 

NOTE: I am sure someone with your training knows all and more about this than me.

I'm not saying get rid of the minimum salary, those players can still collect their 50k a year. I do agree with you that if the minimum salary were to go, certain players would find themselves as semi-professionals, you are correct there.

Edited July 9, 2014 by Tesla

[SF33]

 

 

I was referring more to the idea of having him loaned to us from NYC and being paid minimum wage here with "New York City" footing the majority of the bill. I just think it's an unfair advantage that we have due to the nature of our little football family.

 

But at the end of the day I'm going to agree with HeartFc, I won't care a single bit once the season arrives.

 

No, I'm with you.

 

But, I think that can be justified by saying that it's up to the league to close such loopholes, rather than our club not to exploit them. The league should have envisioned such scenarios when the discussions of a sale and alignment between Manchester, New York and Melbourne first came up. If they didn't, or they did and ignored it, stiff shit, I say.

 

No, I think that we should act ethically because it is in our long term interests to do so, not do things of we can get away with them.

 

 

I agree. But, if I'm being honest, if we did use these sort of measures to circumvent the league's salary cap, it's certainly not going to be anywhere near enough for me to stop supporting the team. Ideally, I'd like us to win on an even playing field. But where do we draw the line? How much money will our club have spent on its preseason compared to others around the league, already? How much better are our training facilities going to be than other clubs'? How much more do we have available to spend on our marquees than most of the other franchise owners?

 

Ethically? Very much a grey area, as far as I'm concerned. We'll be benefiting enormously from visiting players that we probably wouldn't have had a chance in hell of getting if not for our ownership group. But, so will the league and so will the other clubs that host us when our international stars are playing. And that's probably what they're weighing up. The league enjoys a larger global profile, the league gets more respect and the league is in a better position to retain our young Australian talent and recruit world-class players.

[Tesla]

How about the FFA just get rid of the salary cap and then all this guest player, marquee, who pays loan wages, etc. crap goes out the window, and the league also gets stronger.

We'd be about $1.20 to win the league every season.

Would we though? You think our owners would put that much money into us that no other club can match it? Other clubs in this league have pretty deep pockets too. Not to mention, money doesn't necessarily bring success. Obviously there won't be the same level of equality between the clubs, but I don't see it becoming a one team league.

[Heart_fan]

It would be near impossible to have no salary cap in the HAL at this stage.

 

Teams would struggle to compete, crowds would fall away and teams would collapse. I do not want to see a situation like in Scotland in particular, where there were 2 teams with money and in the end only 1 could really sustain that spending. This has now lead to it being a near certainty each year for Celtic to win the title, at the expense of interest and the value of the SPL as a whole.

 

Lets be honest here, before the CFG takeover no fan of our club would have even contemplated a removal of the salary cap. It doesnt change the need for the cap just because we suddenly have money.

[Murfy1]

Regarding the ethics of Lampard being loaned under the cap, it's complicated, but I reckon there's nothing wrong with it, for multiple reasons.

 

 

First, I'm pretty certain there are loopholes in the player rules that would allow the club to 'legally'/legitimately sign Lampard under the cap. A buy-back sitution, or what I've thought of an under the salary cap short contract until the end of December, with Lampard also immediately signing a pre-contract to play with NYCFC after December (I understand pre-contracts can be signed when there is less than 6 months left on a contract). So these situations are all perfectly above board and legitimate, and if there's any shortcoming it's with the design of the rules, not the fact that our club has played by the rules (regardless of what one thinks of the rules). I think victory getting Troisi and Rogic on loan last season, whilst they had their 2 marquees and Mark Milligan under the cap (so they couldn't have had enough cap space to accommodate both loan players' full wages under the cap), is a reminder that this situation would be nothing new, just another instance of clubs playing by the rules in a system where the rules arguably have holes in them.

 

Second, us getting Villa & Lampard on short terms 'guest' or loan stints is actually pretty inline with what the guest rules were first like, where 2 guest players were allowed per team (for about 4 matches each). Only because the guest player rule wasn't fully used in the first few seasons (which is very much true of the marquee player rule itself, which either wasn't used or it wasn't used to sign actual marquees), they changed it to 1 guest player for 10 games.

 

Third, the rules aren't sacred. There's nothing special about them, and the majority of A-League rules are ad hoc and were made after the fact to accommodate changing circumstances. This is seen with the 'junior marquee' rule, which was created to allow A-League clubs to sign Australian Olyroos players, when it was seen as viable for Australian clubs to compete with European clubs for talented young Australian players. And the Australian marquee rule is another case in point, as it was created when 'Golden Generation' Socceroos started returning to Australia. I believe Sydney was one of the first clubs that were keen to take advantage of the new Australian marquee rule, with them targetting both Robbie Fowler and Nicky Carle at the same time IIRC. So I don't have much of a problem with the club 'bending' these rules or going against their poorly thought out intentions, because the rules are far from ideal or smart in the first place.

 

Forth, and whilst I don't buy what SST has apparently said, if it's the case that our club either A) get Lampard on loan & get our own actual marquee, through means that some might question, or B.) get Lampard as our international marquee for half a season, then be unable to get our own proper marquee after he leaves, then it would seem unfair on us (our club, and its supporters, and indeed any club & fans in similar circumstances) to have to put up with situation B just because the rules are poorly thought out.

 

And fifth and finally, Lampard joining the A-League, even if only for a short period, will benefit everyone, literally everyone, significantly. As Berisha even said today: "Of course it's good for Australian football," he said. "And for us it's a derby and we will try of course to win it. It's good for Australian football with players like Lampard or Villa coming." (http://www.goal.com/en-au/news/4021/a-league/2014/07/09/4946232/berisha-eager-for-villa-showdown). Our club, its supporters, other A-League clubs (who would sell a lot more tickets & make a lot more money), other A-League supporters, the Australian public, the FFA, the the A-League overall and Australian football would all benefit if Lampard played for us for a few months. It would turbocharge the competition, and signal that the A-League and Australian football have arrived. Whilst it would be terrible short-termism to oppose such a move, where so many benefit and the greater good is served. Especially to oppose the move because of a poorly thought out bunch of rules to begin with would be the height of stupidity. 

 

 

So overall, the benefits of Lampard joining us on a loan and under the cap (legitimately/following the actual rules under the cap, or bending the rules 'under the cap') would be overwhelming, and IMO such a move would be ethical and appropriate all things considered. And I really think it would be a once-off. Maybe we would get the occasional NYCFC player on a 10 game guest stint, but I'm pretty certain that we'd never try to get 2 marquees on short term deals again. So given that Lampard would be a once off second 'guest player' (effectively, even if we legitimately sign him on loan or whatever), I reckon the benefits far outweigh any negatives from him playing a mere 10 or so games, and everyone from the FFA to opposition players should welcome such a move allowing Lampard to play in the A-League.

Edited July 9, 2014 by Murfy1

[Tonyboozeadams]

How about the FFA just get rid of the salary cap and then all this guest player, marquee, who pays loan wages, etc. crap goes out the window, and the league also gets stronger.

We'd be about $1.20 to win the league every season. Would we though? You think our owners would put that much money into us that no other club can match it? Other clubs in this league have pretty deep pockets too. Not to mention, money doesn't necessarily bring success. Obviously there won't be the same level of equality between the clubs, but I don't see it becoming a one team league.

Roar are loaded, but who has connections to football that even rival cfg(a-league owners that is)

[mulhollanddrive]

Every owner is loaded. 

 

But millionaire/billionaires don't get to where they are by losing money, in fact it takes a psychopathetic attitude to money often to become the elite 1%.  Clive Palmer wanted to save money by locking out fans, our owners did whatever they did to double their money.

 

I think we'd be the only one willing to spend excessive amounts above what we would this season (maybe 4m would turn into 8-10m).  I don't see others doing that.

 

I like the cap, and if we get the 3 marquee signings right, meaning they are the best international, best australian and best under 23, that is a good challenge, but we should be able to do it and that alone would make us favourites.  If we can't win the title with that advantage, then we need to fix alot of things as have been evident.

 

I just hope the new owners don't underplay the A-League, by giving NYCFC genuine superstars, then give us someone a solid A-League team could get anyway.

Edited July 10, 2014 by mulhollanddrive

[malloy]

Every owner is loaded.

But millionaire/billionaires don't get to where they are by losing money, in fact it takes a psychopathetic attitude to money often to become the elite 1%. Clive Palmer wanted to save money by locking out fans, our owners did whatever they did to double their money.

I think we'd be the only one willing to spend excessive amounts above what we would this season (maybe 4m would turn into 8-10m). I don't see others doing that.

I like the cap, and if we get the 3 marquee signings right, meaning they are the best international, best australian and best under 23, that is a good challenge, but we should be able to do it and that alone would make us favourites. If we can't win the title with that advantage, then we need to fix alot of things as have been evident.

I agree (assuming you meant psychopathic). Though it does become a whole different story when the club becomes an extension of the billionaires ego. In this case it would not be the club itself, but the fact were are the extension of man city.

It will be interesting to see how much cash they pour into the club especially considering most players wages would be loose change to sheikh Mansour.

[M13]

It might actually surprise people but Sheikh Mansour is something of a financial expert.. Going back a decade or so I can´t find a single bad investment even if the MAN Group deal eventually turned sour and I´m doubting the wisdom of the Unicredit holdings in Italy.
Barclays Bank, Nova Chemicals, Daimler-Benz etc.. all deals that added billions upon billions in profit

There´s also a trend in these investments, they took place at a time when the companies was considered underachieving, high-risk or not solvent.
Which takes us to CFG where the first target (Manchester City) actually looks to be on the brink of profitability right now..

[SF33]

Every owner is loaded. 

 

But millionaire/billionaires don't get to where they are by losing money, in fact it takes a psychopathetic attitude to money often to become the elite 1%.  Clive Palmer wanted to save money by locking out fans, our owners did whatever they did to double their money.

 

I think we'd be the only one willing to spend excessive amounts above what we would this season (maybe 4m would turn into 8-10m).  I don't see others doing that.

 

I like the cap, and if we get the 3 marquee signings right, meaning they are the best international, best australian and best under 23, that is a good challenge, but we should be able to do it and that alone would make us favourites.  If we can't win the title with that advantage, then we need to fix alot of things as have been evident.

 

I just hope the new owners don't underplay the A-League, by giving NYCFC genuine superstars, then give us someone a solid A-League team could get anyway.

 

Well, yeah, but there's more than one way to skin a cat. You can operate like Donald Sterling did for decades with the L.A. Clippers, pay the bare minimum, let your free agents walk time and again, rather than paying them market value and reap the rewards of a) having a franchise in L.A.; and b ) being fortunate enough to be an owner when the league went through an unprecedented boom. That first part sounded quite similar to how Heart was operating and our owners probably were a bit fortunate that the club was in Melbourne (chances are always pretty good that someone will want to buy one of the two football franchises in Melbourne). An NBA owner, even in a small market city like Milwaukee, can operate like Sterling and just rake in the money, especially if and when they decide to sell, because someone will always be keen to purchase an NBA franchise, whatever the cost and because most teams, regardless of how rubbish they are, generally play to packed stadiums every night. But, I don't think that's the way to make money, long-term, as an A-League owner, because unlike most big-time international sports, in Australia the supply (in terms of seats) generally far outweighs the demand.

 

Being in Melbourne (rather than say, Gosford or Newcastle) and having AAMI as the home stadium are already a couple of advantages. Really, I would have thought they were the two biggest ticks next to the club, when CFG was looking to buy. But I would say the way to make money as an A-League owner, long-term, is to do what our owner is doing. If we get the squad that we anticipate we'll get, we're either going to:

 

1. Win a truckload of trophies

2. Be playing in a  much more highly-rated league, as other teams scramble to catch up; or

3. Both

 

If either 1 or 2 happens, the value of the team will rise considerably.

 

Then, if and when CFG looks to sell, rather than it looking like a fire sale of the franchise at the end of last year, he'll be fielding offers for massive money, that will dwarf the original investment. I reckon the model/plan for increasing the value of this asset is to spend the money, win lots of games, build the crowds. And then there's the stuff on the periphery like the academy (if you're one of the best young footballers in the state and had a choice, you'd probably go to the academy with a direct link to the EPL, wouldn't you?), the training base(s) that have been built and so on. The sky's the limit.

Edited July 10, 2014 by SF33