As a dyed in the wool Chelsea fan, I've been following the Frank Lampard saga with mixed feelings. Mainly because it's difficult to believe a lot of what one reads in the sports press these days. One minute he's going and the next he's staying etc,etc,etc, and for all sorts of different reasons. If he loves the club as much as he says and demonstrates,then why doesn't he accept, what can only be described as a very lucrative contract. Bearing in mind Lampard is now 30, he's been offered a 4 year contract on £140,000pw! Surely that's got to be enough! If he's that desperate to join Morinho again, then he should submit a formal request for a transfer, and let's be done with it! But if he does that, then he knows he will have cooked his goose, as far as the fans are concerned. Hopefully, the saga will be resolved soon and he remains a Chelsea player.

Maybe he thinks that, with Deco and Ballack in midfield as well next season, he won't get many games. It's certainly easier in this day and age to ask for a transfer, or at least seek a move to another club, than actually fight for your place and earn the money you're being paid. After all, it's the players who possess all the power these days.

And I also think the odious, sinister Kenyon, and the club in general are being a little two-faced in all of this. On the one hand, they're blocking any potential move that Lampard wants to make, but on the other hand, they're courting other players themselves (Robinho, for instance), which is basically what Inter are doing with Lampard. I have the feeling that, if any other manager was in charge of Inter than Mourinho, Lampard would be signing for them this week. I find Chelsea Kenyon's attitude a little on the spiteful side.

On a similar theme, but with a different player, Sepp Blatter's interference in the Ronaldo saga is more than a little misplaced and naive. Amazing he's saying that players are no more than slaves and that club's should let them leave if they want out. Whatever happened to honouring your contract? And would ronaldo have been so desperate to leave Utd if Real hadn't acted so disgracefully? I think not. and what about this disgraceful comment?

"We are trying now to intervene in such cases. The reaction to the Bosman law is to make long-lasting contracts in order to keep the players and then if he wants to leave, then there is only one solution, he has to pay his contract."

I believe Man United should stick to their guns and battle it out in court if they have to, there's no doubt that the contract Ronaldo happily signed under no duress shortly before pledging himself to the club for a long, long time will easily stand up in any court in the world. I'd like to see Blatter, Real Madrid or Ronaldo challenge that

The key word you used here is "saga".

Remember Euro 2008? Torres didn't atart in most of Spain's games. Ditto Schweinsteiger for Germany. Not a peep from the Spanish or German fans, media etc.

Imagine the fuss in England if that had happened to Lampard (or certain others who are also nothing like as good or effective as those two).

One of the big problems in English football imho is this endless obsession with the peripherals and particularly personalities - endless energy-sapping pointless hot-air.

Maybe Lampard will stay. But maybe he will go. In that case, Chelsea can buy another player of similar calibre - so what's the big deal?

Do you not mean Euro 2004? Or the WC 2006?

I agree with the implication that we are celebrity driven here, even when it comes to players. Any other country would have looked at Gerard and Lampard, saw they don't work and dropped one of them (Lampard would be the obvious choice). Over here though, even though people say they don't work together, if one gets dropped, there will be a national outcry. Amazing really

Chelsea have always had an abundance of players in midfield, and if they are to compete at the highest level in all competitions, they are going to need them. I don't think Lampard feels threatened by Deco or Ballack. Actually, Deco recently announced that he and Lampard could work really well together. There's also talk that SWP and Makalalee are off and Sidwell has already gone to Villa, so this should ease the midfield situation.

I take your point about Kenyon, I don't trust him one little bit. In fact the whole Chelsea board are as tricky as a cart load of monkeys! They have never been that popular with the fans, and their popularity over the past two years has continued to fall quite dramatically.

Yes, perhaps there is an element of spitefulness in blocking Lampard's move, but at the end of the day, a contract is a contract! Contracts are always signed with the players agent and legal advisors present, so it isn't as though they are tricked into signing something they are unaware of. If the contract is for 5 years,then it's for 5 years, not 1, 2,3 or 4 years. Otherwise, what is the point of having contracts. So whatever the reasons are for Chelsea hanging onto Lampard, they are perfectly within their legal contractual rights to do so. The sad fact is Abramovitch is quite happy to waive the £10 million transfer fee and allow Lampard to walk on a Bosman.

Another thing you have to remember about the Chelsea midfield is that Malouda makes up that number, so that's one down already! But would Ballack, Deco and Lampard work together? I'm not so sure. You've got to find the right combination out of that 3 and, whichever one's left on the bench, they're not going to be happy (could be why Sidwell has left, which seemed a strange signing in the first place and puzzled most Chels fans I know). And chopping and changing them isn't going to do anything for the team either. And, if Makalele leaves, none of those 3 can play his position, either.

I totally agree on the contract point. Players these days are only too happy to break their contracts at the first sniff of another club (speaking generally, not pointing the finger at Lampard over this). I know that everyone's looking to better themselves, which is only right if you're an ambitious person, and it happens in every job in the world. But these players should respect their contracts a little more. Lampard probably isn't the same case as Ronaldo as he's coming to the end of his current deal, unlike that slimy Portugese. In that case, who can blame Lampard at all? Contracts are only there now to bump up any future transfer the club would get anyway. And I've yet to come across any club with the courage to let an unhappy player 'rot in the reserves', especially when a multi-million pound transfer is just around the corner. Yes, Chelsea are right to make him honour his contract, but will they? My suspicion is that, as soon as the bid hits the £10m mark, Frank will be off

i have always thought that lampard was poor in the matches i have seen him play but thats just my opinion.

I have thought that when he plays he is more selfish than most top quality midfielders, he always seem to want the chance himself and goes bombing on forward. As a result I would actually try playing him up front as he would relish the extra chances and I think he'd score alot of goals.

I don't. To play regularly as a striker, you need strikers instincts, something most midfielders don't possess, hence the reason they play in midfield. Take us last season, we played one of our wingers, Paul Parry, as a striker. OK, he scored 11 goals for us, which was an excellent return and I will never criticise him for it. But it was down to necessity as we had a very thin squad. There were times however, that you really could tell he wasn't a natural striker. If a natural striker had been in the position he was in in the Cup Final, when he was in a 1-on-1 with David James haring out of goal in his usual calamitous fashion, James would have been lobbed and we would be 1-1 with a possible extra-time chance. But it's all ifs and ands and, like I say, I will never knock him for it.

But it just illustrates my point about why midfielders are midfielders. And, if Lampard played up front, I believe it would do his reputation more harm than good

Exactly. Just because a player scores lots of goals, it doesn't make them a good striker. Lescott scored double figures for Everton this season but we tried him up front for 30 minutes in a couple of games when we had injury problems up front - result? He was dreadful. Players who score goals from defence or midfield do so as a result of being in that position, if you move them from it, would they find themselves in the right areas of the pitch? I don't think so. It's often said about Tim Cahill that he should play up front, most of his goals come from runs from deeper though when the defence has been separated by the frontmen. It's a completely different role.

Bryan Robson was the same. He scored plenty of goals in his time (for a midfielder) but no-one suggested he play up front. The way he would effect a game just wouldn't be the same if he was pushed up front