Alexander Isak - International C*nt

[oldtype]

Imagine if their respective clubs immediately decided "oh no we need to sell right away, we can't have an unhappy player" the moment Ronaldo/Rooney/Gerrard/Fabregas/Mbappe etc. etc. etc. agitated for a move for the first time.

 

Again, top players do this all the time. Get used to it. We'll sell him when it works for us, not a moment sooner.

 

 

Edited July 25, 2025 by oldtype

[MagPar]

In my opinion.................oh wait, absolutely everything has already been said over 103 times each.

 

[elbee909]

600k a year at Al-Hilal. I'd stay a few weeks then move on. Easy.

[pubteam]

1 minute ago, elbee909 said:

600k a year at Al-Hilal. I'd stay a few weeks then move on. Easy.

£32 million a year tax free, seems reasonable.

[Vedder]

3 minutes ago, pubteam said:

£32 million a year tax free, seems reasonable.

What’s fair market value of the transfer fee if those are the wages?

 

Also, if moving to Saudi is an option, hopefully PIF can persuade them to hold off the Isak transfer until we have a replacement in place.

 

 

Edited July 25, 2025 by Vedder

[Rich]

If he goes to a PIF club in Saudi, UEFA won’t recognise the fee for accounting purposes so we’d be able to book £0 as profit.

[gallowghoul]

2 minutes ago, Rich said:

If he goes to a PIF club in Saudi, UEFA won’t recognise the fee for accounting purposes so we’d be able to book £0 as profit.

uefa won’t recognise the delta between the fee and what they deem as fair market value. Even if they are trying to punish they can’t argue anything below 120m IMHo 

[Palestoon]

I'm confused, so Yasir called Eddie today and reiterated Isak is not for sale. Then picked up the phone with the chairman of Al-Hilal and rubber stamped an offer for Isak 

[Rich]

2 minutes ago, gallowghoul said:

uefa won’t recognise the delta between the fee and what they deem as fair market value. Even if they are trying to punish they can’t argue anything below 120m IMHo 

Those are the Premier League rules, aren’t they?

[JT24]

2 minutes ago, Rich said:

Those are the Premier League rules, aren’t they?

Can this be pinned somewhere?

[ryanegg]

1 minute ago, JT24 said:

Can this be pinned somewhere?

 

It's only a fine under UEFA though. Villa and Chelsea have had it.

[bobbydazzla]

UEFA would just tickle our tummies and tell us not to be naughty again 

 

[M1tche]

I know the picture above tells a different story, but everything else I have read about the UEFA related party stuff, is that they'd only discount it if it was deemed outside of fair market value. 

 

Which if that is the case, it means Liverpool bid 130, we'd be able to add 10 mil on and be fine. 

[Kimbo]

It sounds like Al-Hilal are more likely to buy Nunez to fund Liverpool’s Isak bid. These PIF clubs aren’t our allies.

[r0cafella]

28 minutes ago, Rich said:

If he goes to a PIF club in Saudi, UEFA won’t recognise the fee for accounting purposes so we’d be able to book £0 as profit.

Yes but we save the amortization and salary. 

 

And uefa are pathetic we will get a fine who cares. 

[Jackie Broon]

16 minutes ago, Rich said:

If he goes to a PIF club in Saudi, UEFA won’t recognise the fee for accounting purposes so we’d be able to book £0 as profit.

 

That

13 minutes ago, JT24 said:

Can this be pinned somewhere?

 

Is that right though?

 

As far as I can tell the UEFA rules are essentially the same as the PLs, that income from player trading with related parties does count, it's just that it can be adjusted down if it's not fair market value.

 

Relevant income is equivalent to the sum of the following elements, as described in Annex J.2 below:

Revenue – Gate receipts

Revenue – Sponsorship and advertising

Revenue – Broadcasting rights

Revenue – Commercial activities

Revenue – UEFA solidarity and prize money

Revenue – Other operating income

Profit on disposal of player registrations and/or income on disposal of player registrations

Excess proceeds on disposal of tangible assets

Other non-operating income

Finance income

Foreign exchange result

 

Relevant income must be decreased if any of the elements listed in a) to k) above include any of the items listed in l) to o) below, as described in Annex J.2 below:

Non-monetary credits/income

Income transaction(s) above fair value

Income from non-football operations not related to the club

Income in respect of a reduction of liabilities arising from procedures providing protection from creditors

 

Income transaction(s) above fair value

For the calculation of football earnings, the licensee must reflect any income transaction, irrespective of whether it is with a related party, at fair value. If the estimated fair value is different to the recorded value, then the relevant income must be adjusted accordingly, bearing in mind, however, that no upward adjustments can be made to relevant income.

 

[RobsonsWonderland]

Random thought... But if PIF paid a player to sponsor one of their 100 companies outside of the club finances, would that be against any rules?

 

I mean I remember neymar getting a 200 million pound deal to represent something about the world cup before he signed for PSG 

[r0cafella]

4 minutes ago, RobsonsWonderland said:

Random thought... But if PIF paid a player to sponsor one of their 100 companies outside of the club finances, would that be against any rules?

 

I mean I remember neymar getting a 200 million pound deal to represent something about the world cup before he signed for PSG 

Yes they could, but we should be honest with ourselves he wants to go and it isn't only about money. 

 

If our owners were inclined (zero evidence they are btw) then we could just pay him after he retires via Saudi. 

 

Chelsea have demonstrated perfectly that these rules in the current form as easy to workaround it's choose we've chosen not to. 

[Kooiman]

9 minutes ago, RobsonsWonderland said:

Random thought... But if PIF paid a player to sponsor one of their 100 companies outside of the club finances, would that be against any rules?

 

I mean I remember neymar getting a 200 million pound deal to represent something about the world cup before he signed for PSG 

Legal grey area. Man City's bother partially stems from payments to Bobby Mancini. 

 

It's alleged he signed a deal with Al Jazira (owned by Sheikh Mansour) which would pay him £1.75million annually for a minimum of four days' work per year. I can bet my life savings that if we suddenly made Isak an 'ambassador for Aramco' the Premier League clubs would be meeting to vote on why it's illegal. 

[Kanj]

The whole system is a joke. What a fucking joke. Related party this and that. Fuck off football regulators you don’t care about a single thing but your own pockets. 

[r0cafella]

You really see how scummy the whole thing is when your on the receiving end like. I think the most infuriating thing about this is Liverpools approach, we might offer 120m if you fancy it if not nvm. But it's not really nvm we've been tapping up your player for awhile just waiting for you to fold. 

 

Another enraging aspect is how limp dick we've been as a club in response to this, zero communication just allowing Liverpool to run the narrative making us look like a lower division team. 

[Mike]

Wouldn't hate it if we did what Forest did with Spurs. Fuck Liverpool and fuck Isak.

[r0cafella]

Just now, Mike said:

Wouldn't hate it if we did what Forest did with Spurs. Fuck Liverpool and fuck Isak.

This is how we should handle it. And we should be very clear as to why. Media statements and the lot. We refuse to sell to Liverpool as we believe they have tapped up our player and conducted negotiations via twitter. Hang the cunts out to dry isak included. 

[Kanj]

Still miffed at him for how he handled this. You dont do your mates and coaches like this after the run we’ve had together. 
 

 

[Mike]

After the club doesn't offer the deal they agreed to offer all bets are off. I think he's a fucking dumb cunt for not making his concerns public at the start of the window, and an even dumber cunt to limit his opportunity to Liverpool, but that makes sense if they've been talking to him on the sly since fucking March. At this point, I'd rather we handle this in a way that sends a message to the rest of the squad rather than doing what's best to adhere to fake rules and do what's best for the player. Fuck him and his career.