My sources say it's a done deal. But also here:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/transfer-news/frank-lampard-set-transfer-manchester-3790264

On what kind of a deal?

Can't be a 10 game loan :|

-PB

The Mirror... LOL

Actually the mirror came after. My sources are within the club.same as when villa and duff were confirmed.

Won't be guest ad villa taken that spot. I believe it will be for the full international marquee spot

It will be a 10 game stint. He's off to NYC afterwards

But as an Int Marquee?

-PB

Apparently nope, will be a loan stint and so will just count as a normal visa player with City paying some small fee, and by small I mean less than 100k

I don't know about that. It's one of those loop holes I thought the ffa had iron out. Otherwise too easy for city to bring 4 visa players from man city as "loan deals" I would be very surprised if they get away only applying 100k for cap on lampard.

Nothing suss.

That said, if any A-League club has an opportunity to bring a Frank Lampard to the league, I say fuck the cap.

Nah, just a 10 or so game stint as a loan player. They will pay him minimum wage and make him a regular visa player. They can then replace him when he leaves the club.

Brilliant.

But is this not what everyone was worried about when City took over?...

Thought his wages @ NYCFC came into some account with the cap?

-PB

I don't think anyone, including the FFA, knows how the hell loans from overseas work with the cap, let alone inside co-owned clubs.

Why is it a worry? It's fantastic!

I would prefer they rorted the cap than use a 10 game player as their international marquee. Seems like a wasted opportunity given their resources. I've never given much of a fuck about policing of the cap though. It will be interesting playing them first up - hopefully we won't be flogged by too many.

Agreed, we really need some clarification on this, from where I'm sitting, City will win the premiership, and quite easily, with international stars all within the salary cap.

Because it can lopside the competition and make it unbalanced? :-s

-PB

Seems like a waste of a visa spot, you would have to question the quality of player they could sign in January when he leaves.

The rules are actually straight forward - whatever the loaning club (i.e. Heart) are paying is what goes against the cap. If they are paying nothing then the minimum A-League salary goes against the cap. I used to have a link to the actual contracting document but it is dead now unfortunately

Wow...now that's a "creative" use of the salary cap. Pay him unlimited at one club overseas whilst paying a minimal amount for a 10 game stint in Australia. And once he is gine after his 10 games, they can sign another import to count toward their allowable five.

Surely that's against the spirit of the salary cap. But whatever, most of the big HAL clubs will start doing the same. All it'll take is identifying which MLS players want some extra cash and go from there. Heck, we might end up with Defoe or Henry. Or Cahill.

We currently only have two imports, Nikola and Milos. We sign a #9 for the season, say Ameobi, as marquee. Then we go to Cahill on a 10 game guest stint and say Henry for ten matches before the MLS starts. That's still only 4 imports.

In the meantime, we line up another import, say that German winger, and he can start training with the team as a "triallist". When Henry and Cahill are gone, in comes the German to replace Henry. And we still have room for one more import.

As for paying Henry, put down a figure of $200,000 for 10 matches. What David Traktovenko transfers from Russia into the NY Bulls account against Henry's salary increase is between him and the Russian tax department.

That's how easy it would be to rort the salary cap.

On the plus side, the level of interest could rise to the point where most other clubs can start to afford this calibre of player.. lets hope something really good comes out of it

From extra bums on seats and additional advertising, plus whatever uplift Foxtel pay for their next TV deal against higher ratings?

I like it.

The only thing is, then we might as well just throw the salary cap out the window and operate in a proper, competitive business market.

I honestly believe having visa players outside of the cap would improve the league immeasurably. with next season visa spots going down to 4, that would still be 7 guaranteed aussie players in the staring XI of each club, and the 4 visa players will automatically be quality since clubs won't want to waste these spots. league would improve so much, much more interest in it from home and abroad, and clubs will not be able to dominate with just 4 quality players, encouraging smarter recruiting. most clubs will probably use the 4 spots on attackers however which might stop a new generation coming through so that would definitely need to be addressed but I think overall that would be really good for the league

It's been motioned before, but I think it will eventually have to go this way and we'll enivitably see the decline of half the clubs in the comp without Sydney and Melbourne money.

Although, I think the only way to combat some of that disinterest in a predictable comp is...... Pro/rel 8-[

No one cared when CCM rorted the rules in 07/08.

Explain to us, which rule exactly was 'rorted'?

Gonna be announced some time this week officially I'm hearing.

Gonna be a complete circus. Hope they are unstable as fuck after 10 rounds an go from 1st to 7th on goal difference.

Seems the FFA is the hold up in getting Lampard on a loan deal.

OK if you loan Rogic and Troisi, and have the FFA pay for half of Cahill to go to Sydney though.

Really, you're going to try and compare these situations and complain? :lol:

Really? :lol:

-PB

Edited by mvfcarsenal16.8: 8/7/2014 11:00:38 PM

Its no different. Other than Lampard>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Rogic, Troisi and Cahill put together.

Edited by stefcep: 9/7/2014 09:57:07 AM

At a time when you were only allowed to pay 1 player any money and it wasn't included in the salary cap, CCM had 3.

really ? who ?

:lol:
It's an entirely unique situation and you know it.

The precedent has been set by Melbourne victory let's see if ffa are good for their word

Edited by lukerobinho: 9/7/2014 09:01:48 PM

How come we weren't allowed to pack Berisha off to Indonesia and loan him back?

Edited by YerNathanael: 9/7/2014 10:13:33 PM

Who knows, maybe because its obvious manipulation of the salary cap?

Oh agreed, I didn't word that ideally in hindsight.

I was more getting at the irony of MC being allowed to loan Villa/Lampard from NYC as is being discussed and most if not all of their wage being paid by a club which has the same owners therefore manipulating the salary cap.

Edited by YerNathanael: 10/7/2014 12:04:52 AM

Agreed 100%.

Edited by jlm8695: 10/7/2014 01:55:49 AM

Wasn't Berisha going to be signed by Inter Milan then loaned back to Brisbane?
That was blocked by FFA as an avenue only because they wanted Berisha at Victory to strengthen them and weaken Brisbane. Gotta share the trophies around eh FFA!
(puts on tin foil hat)

There's no way in hell that MV were paying Rogic and Troisi's wages under the cap... Rogic is on €15 000 Per week... Not sure about Troisi.
It's an obvious loophole but I can't really see a way to deal with it without degrading potential positives for the league.

Those loans aren't a problem. It's more when owners of multiple clubs can do the shuffling around their clubs so as to minimize any effect on the cap.

It seems like no one knows what the situation is. Honestly, fuck the cap and bring players to Australia. The cap is halting our potential with such rich owners. Australians love a big name.

That's the nature of having a very specific salary system in a world sport.

Exactly, MCG (Manchester City Group) wants to bring out Villa & maybe Lampard to the A-League & we have people complaining. We all love big names, it's bit great watching Del Piero over the last 2 seasons even though his legs gave out near the end.

Because it's how they are doing it that people have a problem.

Fuck is is that hard for people to understand?

-PB

Please enlighten me how they are doing it? From what I can tell they haven't announced him yet!!!
What is wrong with a guest player & a Loan player?

Guest player: Fine
Loan player from MCG club: Not so fine

IIRC Brisbane asked the FFA for some sort of loan deal for Berisha which would have him on the books of one the Bakrie's clubs and have them pay the majority chunk of his wage. The FFA knocked this back as it does undermine the cap and basically said that whatever the sister club was paying Berisha would be what would be taken out of the cap unlike a normal loan deal.

Yet it appears that City might be being allowed to do this with either Lampard or Villa (whichever isn't the guest).

Feel free to correct me on anything, it was a while ago.

My apologies I did not know this occurred with Berisha, I now understand.
However, no disrespect to Berisha, who I think is one of the best ever A-League players & a Legend here (love him or hate him) but he is no Lampard. We should be encouraging owners who can get players of this quality into this country.

I for one don't care how they do it.

I'll just love watching Villa and Lampard in Australia.

No need to apologize :)

Oh I agree, Lampard would be great. I'd love for him to be signed as the international marquee and have him around for the whole season though.

What other clubs are co-owned. Surely this is a unique situation.

Thing is, there's a way around it in either case. They could loan him to Melb City and in his contract take a big pay cut for 6 months and then have a separate "hidden contract" which will be signed once he leaves melbourne and goes to New York. They will make up for it once he's contracted at New York.

Example, comes to melbourne for $150,000 for 10 weeks, and then moves to America and signs a new deal worth $5,000,000+ There's nothing stopping a player playing for free practically if there is an understanding that payments will be made up in the future.

Basically if a player is moving from one club to another owned by the same owner, it will be practically impossible to enforce these salary cap rules.

From next season they should just open up another marquee spot and get rid of the loan player arrangement which allows certain clubs to take advantage.

To be perfectly honest I don't care if it were Lampard, Drogba or even Messi if City can't get said player under the current rules the FFA shouldn't allow it.

Six months ago, The Roar attempted to discuss the salary cap system with the FFA yet they didn't want to and we were told


So as far as I'm concerned if City can't get Lampard under the current system they shouldn't be allowed to. You can't have one rule for one club and a different one for another club. Its bullshit.

Oil money talks.

Which is a stupid attitude to take, not when the fairness of the competition is at stake.

If they want him, sign him as a permanent marquee ffs.

-PB

Fuck fairness! Fairness has held us back!

This is where we differ, if a club(s) can get these players, my attitude is FFA should do what they can to help out. Berisha as good as he is, is not of this standard.

Edited by robbos: 11/7/2014 06:31:06 AM

So what if Lampard was to sign a short term contract with Melbourne, under the cap for 150k. Similar to someone like Duff (only he has a longer contract). He has no other contracts and therefore no other payments could possibly be included in MCFC's cap.

If he were to then sign with New York in November/December, as any upcoming free agent can do, he can then make his millions without it impacting on the HAL or the cap whatsoever.

It's that simple.

Edited by kaufusi: 11/7/2014 11:53:20 AM

I don't think a players name or standard should really come into though, its about fairness and the integrity of the competition, you simply can't have different rules for different clubs.

If the FFA & City want to change the rules it needs to be a open process that involves all the clubs, a discussion about the salary cap, marquee spots, long service payments, etc.


I really don't think its that simple, if that was the case we'd see all clubs giving out similar deals to this and hiring the players as 'consultants' once their contracts were over but we don't. It will be difficult to trace but they'll be rules in place for these type of deals.

Well no, that's quite different. There's a big difference between a player changing clubs and countries for employment and remaining with the same club in a non playing capacity.

How can the FFA control what a player does after the player's contract expires with a club. All players with less than 6 months remaining on their contract are free to negotiate with other clubs, thats a FIFA thing, it's just that most clubs don't own more than one club and most leagues don't have salary caps.

If Lampard was to play 10 matches and then go to China to make millions there's nothing the FFA could do to stop him. If he goes to New York can they suddenly jump up and down in protest? I doubt it, but if someone has a rule to show me i'd gladly consider it.

Edited by kaufusi: 11/7/2014 03:51:10 PM

Nope. Not really. Not ever.

Tony Vidmar was marquee. Aloisi and Ceccoli were registered as injury replacements for the season-ended injured Matt Osman and Dean Heffernan respectively.

A-league rules, clearly written, had never at any stage required injury replacement wages to be included with the cap along with the deregistered players wage for obvious reasons. Hence not a single rule was broken.

Of course, for anyone who still can't (after 7 years mind you) understand this very, very basic law must either have some kind of adult comprehension disability or is a compulsive liar. Either way, I hope pv4 isn't 'studying' for any kind of profession where peoples lives are affected in any way.