Adam P

Not sure how you could write a legally air tight contract that can be broken simply by a ‘formal request’. Maybe, not a lawyer.

If Isak stays then its entirely possible an additional striker wont work out. We wont keep Isak and sign Wissa for 60m. That would take our spend to 200m.

I dont think he will play for us again but for the club to maintain maximum leverage in the negotiations, the narrative has to remain that he can stay at the club. It’s why Eddie mentioned the chants at the end of the game, can’t complain but they don’t help. If there is no hypothetical pathway back, then the deal is more difficult for the club. The objective of those on his aside of the deal is to create a situation where there is no pathway back, hence why every single word on true topic from Eddie is clear that there can be.

I have to be careful, if I stand still for too long, people use my front teeth as a place to park their bikes.

Trafford would have been done if Man City hadn’t exercised their right to buy, based on matching any offer made. I assume Eddie Howe thought we could sign him too, not just Edwards.

Everyone has a price.

Eddie always smiles and jokes with Edwards, they clearly have a good relationship. Doing our work in the press too.

One simple interpretation is that Isak is 100% gone and we are just waiting to confirm a replacement. Another more nuanced interpretation is that we are trying to manage scenarios since we don’t know if Liverpool will match our valuation. The second interpretation of what is happening must be a million times more difficult to manage.

Having an Italian offer to come and cook us a proper carbonara is the best thing that has happened this summer.

How is relying on the ‘name’ of the club an actual strategy? It’s the opposite of a strategy. One of the stupidest things I have read about this episode.

The value remaining on his contract would be the starting point for compensation.

It could well be bollocks. The premise of my thinking is that if a player refuses outright to play, the club can sue the player for the remaining amount of the contract. Which is why players hand in transfer requests. Like Lookman just did.

This is the second most important part of my thinking 😆

I read Eddie’s words, not Hope’s journalistic spin and it’s still ambiguous. He sent him home from Celtic and didn’t know where he was spending his time away from the tour. He ddint quite say that Isak refused to go on tour just made noises about players behaving correctly. On Hope’s spin, it does sound like you are right but I still think Eddie is in charge and players have less leeway than you think. Their contracts don’t allow them just to take the piss completely and no one at the club wants the situation to get out of hand.

If he doesn’t show up or refuses to play then we could legally sue him for the total money left on his contract. He can’t just down tools, it’s not a legal possibility. We could sue him for about 20m+ if he did. (3 years x salary).

If Eddie tells Isak not to go tour and he has 2 weeks to do as he pleases and Isak decides to go to San Sebastián, that doesn’t make him scum. You give someone 2 weeks off work you don’t get to tell them where they spend that time. Warped logic to conclude he is scum but primarily warped to think that Eddie didnt decide he wasn’t coming on tour.

Definitely fully agree. Once Eddie left him off the tour, he would not have cared where he was staying fit. If he decides not to bring him back into training when they all come back then he is obviously out the door.

Eddie’s decision making goes as far as whether he goes on tour. There is no first team training in Newcastle for over 2 weeks. If Eddie decides he’s not coming on tour, the player can obviously choose where he wants to go. Of course Eddie didn’t tell him where to spend his time or order him to go to Sociedad. Eddie did decide not to take him tour.

I think you called me naive and deluded. A bit personal. And you seem to have a logic failure, it’s you calling Eddie a cuck, not me.

He decided to send him home from Celtic so that negates your second paragraph. Try responding without calling people silly names and just argue your point. Tell me why you think Eddie is a cuck who is not in control of what his first team players do.

There will be a forfeiture clause.

Agent doesn’t get paid if he hands in request.

This

its not a fair reading, it’s completely made up. It is offensive to Eddie as it directly says ‘you are not in control’. Have a think about the legal implications for him of not honoring his work contract. There are very specific clauses in elite contracts to ensure there is significant liability on the party who breaks the contract. The implications of a player ‘downing tools to force a move’ are set out to ensure that the player does not have this option. If they did, then every player would use it as the only downside to them is reputation which can be managed and doesn’t impact their incomes. isak didn’t down tools, Eddie decided the best place for him was training by himself away from Newcastle.

Very offensive to Eddie Howe to make out that his players tell him what they will do. He must look a right cunt in that dressing room according to you having been told by Isak he won’t play at Celtic, won’t come on tour, won’t train at Benton. The accusation that the final word and decision on his whereabouts was down to him striking and not our Manager is mental. It’s just not how elite organizations work.