Adam P

Use a market specific index and then you can from a pure financial point of view. The Footbal Observatory report says that inflation in prem market is around 12% (recently over last decade). 6m over 20 years at 12% is 57m (i think). Les was 30 years ago so its probably a fair comparison.

They went out for dinner after the Sela cup and Sorloth claimed a Greggs pastie was an Empenada so Simeone chinned him.

In my more optimistic moments this last month, i imagine his agent masked like an ISIS terrorist standing over Isak as he is forced at gunpoint to pen out the statement on Instagram, the threat of violence towards Isak's family in Sweden hanging over them.

Vanishingly rarer as time goes on.

Definitely. So he doesnt view him as 'unforgivably damaging the club'. My view is that the fans had a brutal summer and the terminally online ones had the worst. Eddie seems relaxed about him staying and if he has the interests of the club first, then that should help people see the bigger picture.

Why do you think Howe looks at it differently? If Eddie is as committed as he says he is to be solely guided by what is right for the club in every decision he makes, surely there must be some doubt that everyone should share that view. I get the anger, frustration and the way it has impacted us on a PR level but in terms of fundamental damage to the club, i am not sure how Eddie / the club have acted has damaged us at all. I think our stature rises for some with how we have dealt with it so far. Isak has damaged his own reputation but i am not 100% convinced he has damaged ours. I do ignore / never read / engage with mindless online 'banter' and for those that do, there were some brutal moments this summer. Thats all just bollocks though.

I get what you mean. We shall see is the best conclusion. No need for convoluted discussions

Such an empty statement.

I am saying that the value of 2 proposed deals are the same to the seller and the buying club frames it for PR reasons.

The fucks all that got to do with the relative value of two proposed addon deals?

130m and 1m per goal scored in 12 month period.

Your just using a simplistic, unrelated example that ignores the point about 'expected value'. In my previous post, i used the actual figures from the deals and put forward that the 'expected value' to the seller was unknown to the public since the reporting gave no insights into the 'expected value' of the addons. ] If you dont grasp what 'expected value' means here, or why its fundamental to the seller then i would walk away from the discussion.

How did we get here. Look sure, you want to believe the PR machine, players only want to join Liverpool and Man U because they are amazing clubs and not because they pay more. I dont believe that narrative. Players are driven by their agents and money is king.

Doesnt matter what you call the thing being traded, what matters are the fundamental regulatory, legal and financial drivers, the interests of the negotiating parties and their BATNAs. Thats using the a negotiation model where the framing of the negotiation doesnt depend so much on physical descriptions of things, more the characteristics of the deal based on the model's inputs. Anyone working on large deals will know this model, its the preferred training for most large multi nationals. Sorry to flex but i detected a note of condescension.

Everyone seems desperate to believe that we outbid Liverpool and Man U.

Makes no sense that as that would imply no leverage on the seller's behalf and the player could force a move at a lower and lower price, whilst driving up his salary.

Because it makes no sense for the selling club to accept a lower overall offer for a player. I dont struggle to understand anything mate, i work on deals bigger than the ones we discuss on here, hence the bit in bold seems like utter fluff to me.

The 'expected value' of the addons was not and wont be reported. If one clubs bids 69m + 10m in addons based on apperances and another bids 70m + 10m in addons based on goals, the expected value (to the seller) of 69 + 10 bid is higher and they 'paid' more.

So no you're not sure, 'always a hint' sounds like PR to me.

Nothing that has happened makes it make less sense. Before the agent's shenanigans, Liverpool's perception was that 'Newcastle wont sell Isak and are trying to buy Ekitike. If they succeed we risk getting neither'. If Liverpool 'only want' Isak and Isak 'only wants' Liverpool and Newcastle 'only want' Ekitike, it makes no sense for them to buy Ekitike. The agent's reaction timed after the Ekitike deal, the intransigence of NUFC and the statements that we met in March to war game our strategy to keep hold of Isak, all support this version of events. The only viable alternative, that it was a Liverpool power move to take Ekitike and Isak, falls down on the timing of the agent's actions. The 'liking' of Elanga's transfer, the generally positive demeanour of Isak right up until that transfer happens doesnt support a Liverpool strategy to get both as that would have been in place since the start of the summer. Not in reaction to out bid for Ekitike. Which remember, is the true beginning of the Isak saga. There you go, thats the best case i can make.

I still think our Ekitike bid was part of our 'keep Isak' strategy. More convinced now the stance of the club (and hence strategy) is clearer.

Are you sure? Seems to me that Man U's and Liverpool's PR teams worked very hard to counteract the narrative that the players were just joining their clubs for financial reasons. Thats an obvious PR risk in the transfer market and the media teams are clearly paying attention to this as a. its the fundamental driver of transfers and b. creates a negative impression for fans. It makes no economic sense for the seller to accept anything less than the equivalent bid and for the buyer to try and frame the story as one of 'they only want this club'. I suspect the addon conditions were significantly different (appearances vs performances) to make the actual deal overall better for the seller.

Absolutely, the financial incentives are not aligned with truth telling. They are aligned with engagement and clicks. The incentive to click is aligned with negative emotions. Thats why its shite.

Cleary also clearly ignores the direct incentives to manipulate the truth. 'I'm mates with journalists and all they do is pass on the info they are given' is the most outdated view of journalism in 2025 its possible to make. In football circles, as he himself explains, the journalists are part of the process and financial model so Cleary's view, whilst helpful and informative, does not address the fundamental incentives behind the modern business model of reporting on transfers.

How does this work? News of a bid goes in and then news of its refusal within an hour? Are they doing this on a Teams call with the 2 clubs? Also Downie, Jacobs, Hope, Crook, Pasta Cunt all announce offer and then Ornstein says its refused. Ornstein didnt say it was in did he? Just seems like a massive fucking ponzi scheme the whole fucking charade.