Will players still sign for City

[nottsblue]

After the shenanigans of the Lampard deal it has emerged he actually signed for CFG. I assume this is the City Football Group which encompasses all teams.

Will players who we sign do so for CFG meaning they can be loaned out to other sides if necessary? Like Lampard for example. Or was this a one off and players will sign for MCFC as they have previously done. It would make sense for some signings, if not all, to sign for CFG as we as the parent club can decide where best to send/play them without any restrictions or comebacks on loan deals. There may be commercial reasons for this as well.

Thoughts?

[Moonchesteri]

Yes they will

[DoomMerchant]

We are so fucking evil that most will reject out of hand the idea of even playing for Satan's Own.

Cheers

[Wonderwall]

Its never stopped players signing for Chelsea when they really want to play for vitesse arnhem

[Herb]

After the shenanigans of the Lampard deal it has emerged he actually signed for CFG. I assume this is the City Football Group which encompasses all teams.

Will players who we sign do so for CFG meaning they can be loaned out to other sides if necessary? Like Lampard for example. Or was this a one off and players will sign for MCFC as they have previously done. It would make sense for some signings, if not all, to sign for CFG as we as the parent club can decide where best to send/play them without any restrictions or comebacks on loan deals. There may be commercial reasons for this as well.

Thoughts?

We're not 'the parent' club though, that's a misunderstanding put about by some of our fans who seem to believe that MCFC own CFG - which they don't. We're one of a number of clubs that CFG have interests in. To the best of my understanding we're the only club they own outright (all others with partners) so they can always do whatever they want with us but they do have partners to consider in respect of their interests in other clubs.
Beyond control issues they also have to consider commercial interests - as example the Lampard issue was actually very badly managed to the degree that it's pissed on the NYCFC party introducing a lot of negative publicity where positive vibes held sway a few weeks ago. It's also had a lot our fans getting large on the forums about how important we are and how NYCFC means nish in a billy big bollocks fashion that has needlessly upset NYCFC fans who were also supporting MCFC on the back of NYCFC until this kicked off and some of our own decided it was clever to rub the salt in.

Before foreverupjoesarse vents his loose spleen all over my post I must state that I'm not having a pop at anyone, it's an interesting topic and I'm just putting my thoughts is all.

[Im_Spartacus]

After the shenanigans of the Lampard deal it has emerged he actually signed for CFG. I assume this is the City Football Group which encompasses all teams.

Will players who we sign do so for CFG meaning they can be loaned out to other sides if necessary? Like Lampard for example. Or was this a one off and players will sign for MCFC as they have previously done. It would make sense for some signings, if not all, to sign for CFG as we as the parent club can decide where best to send/play them without any restrictions or comebacks on loan deals. There may be commercial reasons for this as well.

Thoughts?

We're not 'the parent' club though, that's a misunderstanding put about by some of our fans who seem to believe that MCFC own CFG - which they don't. We're one of a number of clubs that CFG have interests in. To the best of my understanding we're the only club they own outright (all others with partners) so they can always do whatever they want with us but they do have partners to consider in respect of their interests in other clubs.
Beyond control issues they also have to consider commercial interests - as example the Lampard issue was actually very badly managed to the degree that it's pissed on the NYCFC party introducing a lot of negative publicity where positive vibes held sway a few weeks ago. It's also had a lot our fans getting large on the forums about how important we are and how NYCFC means nish in a billy big bollocks fashion that has needlessly upset NYCFC fans who were also supporting MCFC on the back of NYCFC until this kicked off and some of our own decided it was clever to rub the salt in.

Before foreverupjoesarse vents his loose spleen all over my post I must state that I'm not having a pop at anyone, it's an interesting topic and I'm just putting my thoughts is all.

It is though, as I commented in that thread, incredibly naive to think that City aren't the first priority to the owners given the financial rewards at hand, regardless of the structure of CFG.

On the signing of players. I have to assume that Manchester Ciity, not CFG, held the sole registration for Lampard, as ownership by an entity that isn't a football club, surely would have consituted a breach of 3rd party ownership, which is banned by th Premier League.

[Beefymcfc]

Wouldn't CFG be a 3rd party? .

[Im_Spartacus]

Wouldn't CFG be a 3rd party? .

I reckon so, unless CFG is Manchester City, eg, Manchester City are the joint owners of the MLS franchise, which I'm sure is word for word what was initially reported.

Although Tevez' and Mascherano's loans from MSI were allowed in a similar situation, I'm fairly sure the premier league banned it once the rags and scousers had benefitted from it.

[Peter Doherty (AGAIG)]

Its never stopped players signing for Chelsea when they really want to play for vitesse arnhem

Chortle.

[Beefymcfc]

Wouldn't CFG be a 3rd party? .

I reckon so, unless CFG is Manchester City, eg, Manchester City are the joint owners of the MLS franchise, which I'm sure is word for word what was initially reported.

Although Tevez' and Mascherano's loans from MSI were allowed in a similar situation, I'm fairly sure the premier league banned it once the rags and scousers had benefitted from it.

It would be exactly the same as a 3rd party giving a quarter share to each of the CFG clubs. Not allowed I'm afraid.

This is simply MCFC looking after ourselves and covering all bases (in a Yankee's term).

Alhough, the thought would be nice.

[Im_Spartacus]

Wouldn't CFG be a 3rd party? .

I reckon so, unless CFG is Manchester City, eg, Manchester City are the joint owners of the MLS franchise, which I'm sure is word for word what was initially reported.

Although Tevez' and Mascherano's loans from MSI were allowed in a similar situation, I'm fairly sure the premier league banned it once the rags and scousers had benefitted from it.

It would be exactly the same as a 3rd party giving a quarter share to each of the CFG clubs. Not allowed I'm afraid.

This is simply MCFC looking after ourselves and covering all bases (in a Yankee's term).

Alhough, the thought would be nice.

Are we at cross purposes here?

If CFG owned the rights to a player, then loaned him (eg, assigned his registration) to Manchester City, that would be 3rd party ownership and not allowed, thus giving the original poster his answer.

However, it seems that the structure of the group remains unclear, as does the purpose it serves. For NYCFC to be of any benefit under issues like FFP, eg by attributing income from NYCFC to MCFC's accounts, MCFC would have to be the actual owner of the franchise share with the Yankees, not just a member of the same group. I'm fairly sure that all the original announcements were that Manchester City had acquired the rights, and at the time CFG didn't exist.

If you remember, it's been commented that part of Barcelona's strategy was to acquire a US franchise in 2008/9 but they never went through with it, and therefore with the same players now being at our club, it seems fairly clear that Tricky and Soriano see some genuine commercial benefit to the 'Parent' club, to acquiring these other clubs.

I'm fairly certain that when CFG is being referenced, what we are actually talking about, is Manchester City.

[john@staustell]

We are so fucking evil that most will reject out of hand the idea of even playing for Satan's Own.

Cheers

This

Idiotic OP Notts.

[Im_Spartacus]

We are so fucking evil that most will reject out of hand the idea of even playing for Satan's Own.

Cheers

This

Idiotic OP Notts.

Bit harsh that pal, his point was whether the registration of future signings would be owned by 'CFG' or by Manchester City, which seems a fairly relevant point given nobody seems to know exactly what the implications of our ownership structure are

[ayrshireblue]

Lampard, as far as I understand, didn't sign for NYC or for CFG. He signed a pre-contract with NYC stating his intention to join them for the start of the MLS season, he then signed a short term deal with City until 31/12/14 which meant he could still go to NYC in March. However, due to the success of this period with City, he and City wished him to sign a longer term deal until the end of the English season. This then required negotiation to move the start date of his contract with NYC from March to July.

[Im_Spartacus]

Lampard, as far as I understand, didn't sign for NYC or for CFG. He signed a pre-contract with NYC stating his intention to join them for the start of the MLS season, he then signed a short term deal with City until 31/12/14 which meant he could still go to NYC in March. However, due to the success of this period with City, he and City wished him to sign a longer term deal until the end of the English season. This then required negotiation to move the start date of his contract with NYC from March to July.

Not really, it seems he never signed anything with NYCFC (pre-contract or otherwise). No 'renegotiation' of anything was required.

He seems to have been contracted to MCFC from the start, apparently with a clause that allowed him ONLY to join NYCFC in January.......but that clause is very different to him having any signed agreement with NYCFC, it just means he had an exit point in his MCFC contract.

Just on the financial aspect, I reckon MCFC would have received a physical transfer fee or a loan fee had Lampard opted to join in January, as this route is the one way MCFC can keep the FFP wolves from the door with this type of arrangement.

I also wonder if, when Lampard goes next season, we will pull the same stunt with Xavi

[Foreverinbluedreams]

Lampard, as far as I understand, didn't sign for NYC or for CFG. He signed a pre-contract with NYC stating his intention to join them for the start of the MLS season, he then signed a short term deal with City until 31/12/14 which meant he could still go to NYC in March. However, due to the success of this period with City, he and City wished him to sign a longer term deal until the end of the English season. This then required negotiation to move the start date of his contract with NYC from March to July.

Not really, it seems he never signed anything with NYCFC (pre-contract or otherwise). No 'renegotiation' of anything was required.

He seems to have been contracted to MCFC from the start, apparently with a clause that allowed him ONLY to join NYCFC in January.......but that clause is very different to him having any signed agreement with NYCFC, it just means he had an exit point in his MCFC contract.

Just on the financial aspect, I reckon MCFC would have received a physical transfer fee or a loan fee had Lampard opted to join in January, as this route is the one way MCFC can keep the FFP wolves from the door with this type of arrangement.

I also wonder if, when Lampard goes next season, we will pull the same stunt with Xavi

If he didn't sign for NYCFC then why did they say on their OS that he did? City's OS also said he signed for NYCFC.

[Pretty Boy Lee]

Football players are a tad predictable.

If we pay and win, they will come!

[Im_Spartacus]

Lampard, as far as I understand, didn't sign for NYC or for CFG. He signed a pre-contract with NYC stating his intention to join them for the start of the MLS season, he then signed a short term deal with City until 31/12/14 which meant he could still go to NYC in March. However, due to the success of this period with City, he and City wished him to sign a longer term deal until the end of the English season. This then required negotiation to move the start date of his contract with NYC from March to July.

Not really, it seems he never signed anything with NYCFC (pre-contract or otherwise). No 'renegotiation' of anything was required.

He seems to have been contracted to MCFC from the start, apparently with a clause that allowed him ONLY to join NYCFC in January.......but that clause is very different to him having any signed agreement with NYCFC, it just means he had an exit point in his MCFC contract.

Just on the financial aspect, I reckon MCFC would have received a physical transfer fee or a loan fee had Lampard opted to join in January, as this route is the one way MCFC can keep the FFP wolves from the door with this type of arrangement.

I also wonder if, when Lampard goes next season, we will pull the same stunt with Xavi

If he didn't sign for NYCFC then why did they say on their OS that he did? City's OS also said he signed for NYCFC.

This is what the fans are kicking off about - it's starting to emerge that for whatever reason, NYCFC seem to have announced a signing that they never actually made, in which case I think the fans have every right to be fucked off. Although their ire seems to be directed at MCFC, they need to ask the question of their club's administrators why the fuck they announced a signing they hadn't made!

It's my understanding that if a player signs for a club, they also sign for the MLS - and as with any other league, the formalities (paperwork) needs to be lodged with the league. The elephant in the room when the cunt from the MLS is on his high horse making public statements saying we have to 'do some explaining to the fans' is that they obviously knew from the fucking start that NYC hadn't signed him because they never saw the contract. If there was a contract THEY, eg the MLS would have some explaining to do, as they would be have to have been complicit in the contract amendment.

[Ted Hughes]

Interesting the 'cunt from the MLS' seems fairly chilled about it, actually saying he will sign in July, which he claims is the usual thing with most 'designated players' & also hints at other signings.

Interesting re Xavi; I don't know if anyone read a quote from him recently, re signing for NYC, but he basically said he's glad he didn't sign a deal as he would have had to play vs Barca, & that would have been 'shit' even if the rest of the agreement was pleasurable.

I didn't understand why he thought that, but now we can see; he would been our player, not theirs & therefore potentially had to play Champs League v Barca. That also imo means he may be on his way to NYC, when Lampard goes.

At some point, those who are disgruntled, should be given the option of a refund. But of course it would make sense to have a carrot to dangle at them first.

[john@staustell]

It's OK NYC have just signed some South American defender fella, and I'm sure there's something else up the sleeve. Sounds like the 'cunt from the MLS' had an overnight phone call and everything's OK!