/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/45182424/lampard_kreis_presser.0.0.jpg)
I'm going to start out this story with a few quotes.
It's not the crime that gets you...it's the cover up. -- Richard Nixon
Mark Abbott told me: "There is no possibility he (Lampard) is not coming at all…he’ll be playing for the @MLS team in 2015." #Pellegrini
— Alexi Lalas (@AlexiLalas) January 5, 2015
Abbott on Lampard not really "signing" w/ @MLS: "It is a distinction w/o difference…he had overall agreement w/ owner, City Football Group."— Alexi Lalas (@AlexiLalas) January 5, 2015
Mark Abbott on Lampard’s reported "loan" to MC: "There wasn’t a loan and I’m not quite sure why it got characterized as a loan."
— Alexi Lalas (@AlexiLalas) January 5, 2015
Finally, today's Guardian article on Frank Lampard's contract situation:
A statement by the Premier League said: "Frank Lampard is registered as a Manchester City player until the end of the 2014-15 season.
"The Premier League has sought and received assurances from Manchester City that there is no agreement in place between the club or City Football Group with New York City FC relating to the player."
When I excoriated everyone for lying about Frank Lampard's contract situation, I made the point that fundamentally, liars assume that people are too stupid to follow the inconsistencies in their stories. Left unsaid, though, was why. Usually, it's not because of malice aforethought; it's because they want to avoid the temporary pain of fixing an error and admitting responsibility. But as the lies and inconsistencies mount, so does the scale of the crime. And on, and anon.
With that in mind, let's recap the story.
In the space of five months, we've gone from Frank Lampard
- "signing" with New York City and being "loaned" to Manchester City for match fitness, to him
- signing some kind of unspecified "agreement" with City Football Group that ostensibly compels him to play for New York City at some point this year, which then brings us to today, when
- the Premier League stated flat out that Lampard is under contract with Manchester City, no ifs, ands, or buts, and that there's no agreement concerning the prospect of Lampard playing for New York City, which is how I (and several other people) are reading this statement.
In short: Lampard is playing for Manchester City now. Could he play for New York City in the future? Sure, but he could also stay here. We know nothing of what the future holds. Here, have a cookie.
You can't be mad at Mark Abbott for not being able to keep up with the story. I'm uncertain that City Football Group can keep up, and they're the ones spinning it. You can be angry at the lies, but to me the really interesting element is the why. That's the part that fascinates me, here. Why put yourself in this situation?
As I retrace and recap the story, these questions keep cropping up.
If the original intention was for Lampard to sign with Manchester City, then why not just sign him outright on a free transfer? If he doesn't work out, then you cut him loose and he's free to sign with any other team -- including New York City. Hell, that's precisely what Chelsea did when they refused to sign him to a new deal -- and he's a legend there.
"But why would they cut him? You just can't cut a star like Lampard like that!" Are we to believe that Manchester City is somehow more solicitous of his emotions than Chelsea? Come on.
Why go through all the rigmarole of trotting him out, not just as any old player, but as a designated player for New York City, and the face of the franchise?
If, in fact, the Premier League is right and Frank Lampard has been a Manchester City player all along, with no agreement to come play for New York City after the end of the season -- then how can Don Garber and Mark Abbott, not to mention the dozens of ticket sales reps working for New York City, say categorically that Lampard will be playing for the team in 2015? Presumably, they'd be competing for his signature like any other club.
Let's go back even further, though. If Lampard has been under contract all along with Manchester City, then how on earth could New York City -- and by extension, MLS, which as a single-entity holds all the player contracts -- announce that they'd signed him to a contract?
Lampard joins David Villa, Jeb Brovsky and Josh Saunders on the roster at the Club and has signed a two-year contract which starts August 1st. (July 24, 2014)
That explains why, contrary to Mark Abbott's assertions, everyone, including Manchester City, characterized it as a loan.
Lampard was unveiled as New York City FC’s new signing two weeks ago in Brooklyn. After meetings with Manuel Pellegrini at City’s New York headquarters it was decided that Frank will train and play with Manchester City ahead of teaming up with Jason Kreis’ New York City for the inaugural season. (August 6, 2014)
That wasn't the only time Lampard's contract was referred to that way. Sky Sports called it that, and damningly, so did Manchester City's Manuel Pellegrini, on numerous occasions:
"It's not so easy because Frank is a New York City player. He is only on loan until December 31, so we must respect the other people.
But according to the Premier League, he wasn't. Not then, not ever.
So, who's telling the truth? More to the point, why is there all this confusion? Why do we have this level of misdirection from City Football Group?
I don't know. I don't have an answer, and I'm not holding my breath that we'll see a copy of Lampard's contract any time soon, if ever. But I do have an inquiring mind. I'm able to look at all the evidence that we do have, and therefore read between the lines of that evidence.
Here's what I've come up with so far. Hang tight, it's going to get insanely complex.
We know that New York City FC isn't owned by Manchester City. Instead, it's owned by City Football Group, a holding company established to oversee the creation and administration of a network of linked clubs and other footballing operations under the aegis of Manchester City. CFG also owns Melbourne City, and has a minority stake in the Yokohama F-Marinos of Japan's J-League.
Regardless of the terminology used, it's clear that CFG revolves around Manchester City. What isn't clear is if CFG owns Manchester City too, or if it's just affiliated to it by virtue of being under the umbrella of the Abu Dhabi United Group, which is the company used by Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan to facilitate his purchase of Manchester City in 2008.
That matters, because MLS' assertions that Lampard will play for New York City rest on the notion that Lampard's contract that compels him to play in MLS is with City Football Group.
But wait, I hear you asking. Isn't the fact that MLS is a "single-entity" league mean his contract would have to be with MLS, and not with an individual team? Yup. I'm entirely unclear why Mark Abbott would say that it's a "distinction without a difference". Here's what Alexi Lalas got from Mark Abbott today in response to the Premier League's assertions.
Mark Abbott (@MLS Dep. Commish) tells me agreement was with Lampard and City Football Group, not CFG/MCFC and NYCFC. That's the distinction.
— Alexi Lalas (@AlexiLalas) January 8, 2015
Means Lampard had a binding personal agreement with CFG/owner that he'd sign an @MLS contract. RT @RichardMcGovern What does that even mean?
— Alexi Lalas (@AlexiLalas) January 8, 2015
Here, by the way, is MLS’ official version of Lampard’s contract situation: Before he was announced by NYCFC last summer, Lampard entered into an agreement with the City Football Group to play under an MLS contract for 2015 and ’16 and to play for Man City until the end of 2014 under a Man City contract. Now that Lampard’s Man City contract has been extended to the end of this season, he will join NYCFC in July and play under an MLS contract.
"The Premier League has sought and received assurances from Manchester City that there is no agreement in place between the club or City Football Group with New York City FC relating to the player."