Alexander Isak - International C*nt

[tarie4]

1 hour ago, Gawalls said:

It still seems he may want the move and his head has been turned , let’s say for conversation wise it has - do wr keep another year and risk his value dropping as he’s down to two years and may not deliver like this year as his hearts not in It as much or do we sell now?

 

 

 

How  does his value drop if he has 2 years left??

[Fenham Mag]

Now we know how Spurs fans felt  they had this every summer with Kane.

[Keegans Export]

Just now, junkhead said:

 

Yeah.. reading the calculation above, I might be wrong with how contract amortisation works but 280-300k on a week for five years is ~70m

Fair enough 

 

In that case the only extra cost is how much more we're giving him. Plus, in all likelihood he's off in a 12 months anyway so we don't have to worry about it beyond year one!

[Goldbossed]

12 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

They absolutely can - even the reduced overhead of the reamortised transfer fee would ‘zero cost’ from a PSR perspective.

 

NUFC signed Isak in the 22/23 season for £63m.  So that means £63m / 5 =£12.6m per season amortisation

 

We’re now in 25/26 - so three seasons have already been amortised; so 3 * £12.6m = £37.8m.  So the new five year deal would be £37.8m / 5 = £7.56m amortisation per year.

 

£12.6m - £7.56m = £5.04m difference.  So NUFC could give Isak an extra £100k per week and our PSR wouldn’t move at all. 

This was taken from The Athletic yesterday :

“Alexander Isak's representatives have been keen to increase his wages but Newcastle are unable to massively increase his wages. If they do, they may need to trim the wage bill elsewhere, or potentially sell, due to PSR.”

[r0cafella]

Just now, Goldbossed said:

This was taken from The Athletic yesterday :

“Alexander Isak's representatives have been keen to increase his wages but Newcastle are unable to massively increase his wages. If they do, they may need to trim the wage bill elsewhere, or potentially sell, due to PSR.”

Yes, this is objectively false. 

[duo]

4 minutes ago, Yorkie said:

Dunno about anyone else but I rather hope we beat Liverpool a couple of times next season.

Isak scoring as well

[Goldbossed]

1 minute ago, r0cafella said:

Yes, this is objectively false. 

Eddie Howe : “Finances play a big part of course.

“Anyone who doesn’t accept that is deluded.

“It would be wrong to put that on each and every player, each situation is different, but we can’t and aren’t the biggest payers in the league, because we don’t generate the most income.

“So, we have to fall in line with PSR, be very smart with what we do.

“We have to control the wages of the players we have and that all plays a part in who we can attract.”

[TheBrownBottle]

1 minute ago, Goldbossed said:

This was taken from The Athletic yesterday :

“Alexander Isak's representatives have been keen to increase his wages but Newcastle are unable to massively increase his wages. If they do, they may need to trim the wage bill elsewhere, or potentially sell, due to PSR.”

Standard football hacks not understanding basic maths shocker.  They’ve been like this for years.  Completely untrue unless Isak wants an extra £200-300k per week (which he might well do).  Even then, so what?  If he’s who you need, then sell.  Sell a ‘purple’ if necessary.  Sell a Gordon or a Joelinton. 

[TheBrownBottle]

Just now, Goldbossed said:

Eddie Howe : “Finances play a big part of course.

“Anyone who doesn’t accept that is deluded.

“It would be wrong to put that on each and every player, each situation is different, but we can’t and aren’t the biggest payers in the league, because we don’t generate the most income.

“So, we have to fall in line with PSR, be very smart with what we do.

“We have to control the wages of the players we have and that all plays a part in who we can attract.”

You’ve been given the maths tbf

[Andy84]

7 minutes ago, Yorkie said:

Dunno about anyone else but I rather hope we beat Liverpool a couple of times next season.

Goes without saying, even more than Sunderland 

[junkhead]

4 minutes ago, r0cafella said:

Yes, this is objectively false. 

 

We were dangerously close to the wage limit in UEFA's financial regulations, weren't we?

 

Not that a meagre financial penalty should deter us.. but apparently it does. 

 

 

Edited July 20, 2025 by junkhead

[r0cafella]

Just now, junkhead said:

 

We were dangerously close to the wage limit in UEFA's financial regulations, weren't we?

As I've said before, who cares about Uefa rules?

[Goldbossed]

Just now, TheBrownBottle said:

You’ve been given the maths tbf

What maths? No one knows the exact financial situation of the club better than the manager of the club. Are you saying he is wrong? The athletic piece is also from the Newcastle correspondent. It’s what he would have been informed of 

[TheBrownBottle]

Just now, Goldbossed said:

What maths? No one knows the exact financial situation of the club better than the manager of the club. Are you saying he is wrong? The athletic piece is also from the Newcastle correspondent. It’s what he would have been informed of 

Yes, I’m saying exactly that.  Who wrote the piece - glorified fanzine writer Caulkin, or tactics rain man Waugh?  

You don’t need to know the club’s ’financial situation’.  PSR calcs are completely standard, and were laid out for you.  We could give Isak an extra £100k per week and it would be ‘PSR neutral’. 

[WinstonFC]

1 minute ago, r0cafella said:

As I've said before, who cares about Uefa rules?

Spot on. Would only be a few million fine, be well worth it.

[KennyUtd]

If we can try to sign players for upwards of £60 million then surely we can up Isak's wages significantly enough for him to stay. It's already been said it'll probably only be for 12 months anyway. It makes no sense. 

[Goldbossed]

1 minute ago, TheBrownBottle said:

Yes, I’m saying exactly that.  Who wrote the piece - glorified fanzine writer Caulkin, or tactics rain man Waugh?  

You don’t need to know the club’s ’financial situation’.  PSR calcs are completely standard, and were laid out for you.  We could give Isak an extra £100k per week and it would be ‘PSR neutral’. 

They are educated guesses. Without having the current financial statement, how can anyone give a certain answer. Ive seen various financial experts giving differing opinions on how much Newcastle can spend this summer, for that very reason 

[junkhead]

5 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

Yes, I’m saying exactly that.  Who wrote the piece - glorified fanzine writer Caulkin, or tactics rain man Waugh?  

You don’t need to know the club’s ’financial situation’.  PSR calcs are completely standard, and were laid out for you.  We could give Isak an extra £100k per week and it would be ‘PSR neutral’. 

 

Slightly hungover, so might be wrong but you're not including the value of his existing and hypothetical new contract and amortise only the transfer fee we paid? That's like 100m off

 

 

Edited July 20, 2025 by junkhead

[TheBrownBottle]

1 minute ago, Goldbossed said:

They are educated guesses. Without having the current financial statement, how can anyone give a certain answer. Ive seen various financial experts giving differing opinions on how much Newcastle can spend this summer, for that very reason 

They aren’t ’educated guesses’ it is literally how amortisation works.  And we’re not discussing how much Newcastle can spend this summer - you’d need the 24/25 figures and 25/26 forecast to be accurate.  But renegotiating an extra £100k per week for Isak would have no impact on PSR at all. 

[TheBrownBottle]

1 minute ago, junkhead said:

 

Slightly hungover, so might be wrong but you're not including the value of his existing and hypothetical new contract and amortise only the transfer fee we paid? That's like 100m off

 

 

 

Only the original fee gets amortised - you don’t amortise assumed value etc.  His new salary would replace the old one, and it becomes an ‘extra over’ calculation.   What I haven’t included is a signing-on fee for a new deal - but the point is that a chunky new contract could be awarded at ‘zero’ cost (PSR-wise)

[WinstonFC]

3 minutes ago, KennyUtd said:

If we can try to sign players for upwards of £60 million then surely we can up Isak's wages significantly enough for him to stay. It's already been said it'll probably only be for 12 months anyway. It makes no sense. 

Think hes on 130k now. So if we offer him a new 4 year contract worth 250k a week. That would be an extra 32m on top of what his current contract pays. Surely thats doable?????

[Goldbossed]

1 minute ago, TheBrownBottle said:

They aren’t ’educated guesses’ it is literally how amortisation works.  And we’re not discussing how much Newcastle can spend this summer - you’d need the 24/25 figures and 25/26 forecast to be accurate.  But renegotiating an extra £100k per week for Isak would have no impact on PSR at all. 

But how much room to facilitate that, is there. I’d rather go on what’s being said by the Newcastle manager and what’s been reliably being reported than ppl getting their calculator out based on forecasts

[TheBrownBottle]

3 minutes ago, Goldbossed said:

But how much room to facilitate that, is there. I’d rather go on what’s being said by the Newcastle manager and what’s been reliably being reported than ppl getting their calculator out based on forecasts

But it isn’t based ‘on a forecast’.  It isn’t based upon projections, nor assumptions, nor guesses.  PSR is based upon very, very simple maths.  Isak’s transfer fee - which is on our books every season in ‘amortised’ form - would reduce in the season from over £12m to over £7m.  It you gave him the difference, it would have no impact on PSR calcs.  I don’t give a shite what the football hacks have written - they’ve proven over enough time that despite it being their ‘profession’, they write shite for low salaries. 

 

 

Edited July 20, 2025 by TheBrownBottle

[Tiresias]

It was reported at start of summer Isak wanted to stay but he wanted for the club to be competitive in the champions league. He cant be totally reassured by our ongoing ramshackle transfer efforts so I imagine he is thinking about Liverpool or others. I sincerely doubt he will refuse to play or anything so we can insist. If we can just get some players over the line may also reassure him.

[Keegans Export]

2 minutes ago, Goldbossed said:

But how much room to facilitate that, is there. I’d rather go on what’s being said by the Newcastle manager and what’s been reliably being reported than ppl getting their calculator out based on forecasts

How much room to facilitate "no impact on PSR at all"? Is that what you're asking?

 

All you need to work out amortisation is how much the player was signed for and how long the contract is, plus any extensions. It's not degree-level accounting just a basic understanding of how amortisation works.