AyeDubbleYoo

Could talk about this all day, who knows. Seems odd that Man City wouldn’t be interested in him in June but in July they are.

He probably won’t even have to move house.

Ah got you. Still though, Man City would have to have been given first refusal before the deal happened. They might have rejected him obviously, but would’ve been a weird thing to do at an even cheaper price than they’re paying now. I’m not saying we’ve been very good on this deal but the clause is the biggest factor IMO. That’s why they asked for the clause in the first place.

Yeah I agree, however I think the people who did those deals are still here, aren’t they? Or are we thinking Amanda?

Technically Isak only really participates in 60ish minutes of every game. They’re good minutes obviously.

I don’t really have a clue, sounded like Pedro and Ekitike were extremely close until they had better options. And Trafford was done until the Man City clause kicked in. The point is that the clubs in question can pay more than us and have more pulling power for these players.

Ah well, Ornstein just said our bid was too low. If not then fair enough. Even if we had agreed a deal though, the point is that Burnley would be required to call Man City and give them a chance to buy him first.

Footballers can’t just leave jobs like ordinary people can, that’s the price they pay for being incredibly privileged and massively rich by playing a game every day. They’re massive assets to billion pound businesses and they can only move if the right solution can be found for all parties.

FWIW I’m not bothered either way as long as we’re trying. We need to sort out our backroom operation and get a new CEO and DOF in as soon as we can, then we will see what the plan should be. If it was Brighton-style spreadsheet football it would be a bit depressing in a way but it still wouldn’t come close to the Ashley abyss.

I’m not sure about this, I think we have lots of money to spend but have just targeted players that would rather go somewhere else. We’ve really only missed out to players who have gone to the tiny group of teams just above us.

I just petted a dog and it only helped about 1%.

It could be that we will need to target unknown players like Brighton do. But we will also need to revise our targets and expectations down to a more realistic level.

I thought we didn’t agree a deal with Burnley back then?

Yeah, obviously we don’t have a fully functional setup in place at the moment and mistakes have been made. But we could still offer Isak CL football, hero status and probably £100k more a week. That’s an amazing deal for anyone.

We definitely shouldn’t approve the sale until a major replacement is ready to come in. I don’t want to sell him to Liverpool at all obviously, but I assume that’s the only potential buyer now. So £150m minimum and replacement ready to come.

Everything they tweet is for engagement. Someone is probably off sick or something.

Of course not, there’s a month to go.

He employs his agent, he can tell him to shut the fuck up.

Yeah I know, but I can’t see how we can confident of that. Either they want him as a player or they play to flip him for profit, could just as easily have been the case last summer. It just never came up because Burnley didn’t agree to sell him.

No chance, optics would be disastrous unless we get a record fee.

Surely this ignores the fact that a call would have to go into Man City at any point a deal was agreed?

£150m should be the minimum. TBH I wouldn’t agree to let him go until we’re ready to finalise Sesko and Wissa. Make the buyer sweat until near the end of the window.

As I thought really. Our hope/belief was that Man City weren’t bothered about taking him back. Still wouldn’t be completely surprised if he never plays for Man City and leaves next summer.

Loans between PL clubs should’ve been banned ages ago.

Yeah I know, but even in that case he would also have been offered to Man City. Maybe they wouldn't have taken up the option, I guess we can't know.