Alexander Isak - International C*nt

[Cronky]

41 minutes ago, KennyUtd said:

The BBC transfer thread this morning is horrific like. Just people supporting Liverpool's behaviour and even posts from fkn Sunderland man. Apparently we're doing exactly the same with Wissa. Not sure we unsettled the player mind. Offering a bid to his club is hardly the same as getting into Isak's ear for months. The fkn people's club are just a bunch of thirsty cunts imo.

I might have made up the people's club bit but you get my gist.

 

 

 

Hmmm… I’m not aware of these self-righteous pundits giving the same message to Brentford and telling them to surrender their player.

[OverThere]

Brentford want 50 is it? I would offer them that and if they move the posts then it's a Guehi situation and not worth pursuing 

[Miggys First Goal]

We were always going to be viewed as the bad guys in this saga. Nobody has commented on the frankly offensive offer Liverpool made. 

[gjohnson]

1 hour ago, Kimbo said:

My problem is I don’t see Liverpool raising their bid by that much, they won’t go near £150m IMO. They’ll have too much ego to just meet our price and clearly want to be seen as a big club that can bully non-ESL clubs.

Well thats TS....clubs havent bent over on our valuations. We have no reason to accept anything that doesnt match we want given the current contracts. 

 

Isaks on what about 15m a year? So if we want to be fair, id say pool should pay the value of the remaining...45m plus what we paid, so 45 + 63 and the fee wed have to pay for a replacemt(70m odd) so should be looking at around 177m to gamble on Sesko or whoever being able to adequately replace isak and not actually be worse off

[bobbydazzla]

Tindall stood behind Eddie's desk, looking menacing in his Wham! jumper

[Collage]

4 minutes ago, Miggys First Goal said:

We were always going to be viewed as the bad guys in this saga. Nobody has commented on the frankly offensive offer Liverpool made. 

We should make a 10m bid for van Dijk.

[lxsln]

So according to FIFA article 17, Isak can break his contract and get a 4-month registration ban and be forced to pay compensation to the club? Who decides that amount?

[geordiesteve710]

7 minutes ago, gjohnson said:

Well thats TS....clubs havent bent over on our valuations. We have no reason to accept anything that doesnt match we want given the current contracts.

 

 

 

Correct. Despite all the wailing in the press from the usual suspects, this is the long and short of it.

 

If he's got any sense he'll stay another year and use playing in the CL to showcase his talents to the richest clubs in Europe.

[David Edgar]

44 minutes ago, The Prophet said:

Keith has been on the rampage of late.

 

Fairly savage. 

[Keegans Export]

2 minutes ago, lxsln said:

So according to FIFA article 17, Isak can break his contract and get a 4-month registration ban and be forced to pay compensation to the club? Who decides that amount?

Could be in the contract or would be one for CAS.

 

Compensation could be substantial though, if we then have to spend £70m+ on a replacement for example.

[LFEE]

2 minutes ago, lxsln said:

So according to FIFA article 17, Isak can break his contract and get a 4-month registration ban and be forced to pay compensation to the club? Who decides that amount?

I read a week ago it would be around £20m 

[Wilson]

Has ornstein been briefed by isaks agent yet? 

 

Wondering when we will be told we should do the right thing and pass our star striker to Liverpool and be grateful for the low ball offer. 

[thomas]

article 17 sounds like a nuclear option for him and not something to toss around lightly. if he really wants it after august i guess we'll find out 

 

edit: Actually I think there's too much risk for him if the various assessments around the web are correct: 

 

• breaching before the end of august (protected period) would be unthinkable for liverpool+isak because of the ban and legal issues and ramifications, possibly including transfer bans etc 
• breaching after  the end of august is much cleaner for everyone involved but liverpool need a striker in THIS window and might not wait around for jan. 

 

the only true way forward for both of them is liverpool not being miserly cunts 

 

 

Edited August 4, 2025 by thomas

[Optimistic Nut]

6 minutes ago, LFEE said:

I read a week ago it would be around £20m 

 

Very dangerous precedent if this were to ever happen.

[relámpago blanco]

Just now, Optimistic Nut said:

 

Very dangerous precedent if this were to ever happen.

Yep, would be massive, it would also be dragged through the court for years and he would be unlikely to play football during that period.

[duo]

Sounds like we are just basically giving them the cash to give us what we want for Isak 

[Dr Venkman]

13 hours ago, gdm said:

Very much in the same boat. His goal in the final is sadly unwatchable for me now.

 

I'll be as pissed off as anyone if he goes to Liverpool but this sort of stuff has me wondering if we've expanded beyond Planet Soft Cunt to colonise new worlds and are now inhabiting the Soft Cunt Solar System.

[lxsln]

13 minutes ago, LFEE said:

I read a week ago it would be around £20m 

So what's stopping Liverpool from giving Isak a £20 million signing-on fee and letting him sit in the stands until the New Year? They'll save £100 million.

 

There must be some type of protection for the club, otherwise this would be used all the time.

[Adam P]

18 minutes ago, lxsln said:

So according to FIFA article 17, Isak can break his contract and get a 4-month registration ban and be forced to pay compensation to the club? Who decides that amount?

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

[Robster]

21 minutes ago, lxsln said:

So according to FIFA article 17, Isak can break his contract and get a 4-month registration ban and be forced to pay compensation to the club? Who decides that amount?

Liverpool probably. 

[timeEd32]

1 hour ago, Unbelievable said:

That bit of news passed me by. Great news for us and all the more reason to sell Isak next year as that will ensure our revenue next season will be inflated when it needs to be, no..?

Like UEFA I’m sure player sales will be an average over three years. 

[Wilson]

2 minutes ago, Robster said:

Liverpool probably. 

 

[Kid Icarus]

 

 

 

[thomas]

5 minutes ago, lxsln said:

So what's stopping Liverpool from giving Isak a £20 million signing-on fee and letting him sit in the stands until the New Year? They'll save £100 million.

 

There must be some type of protection for the club, otherwise this would be used all the time.

 

https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?cid=148221&dir=&docid=290690&doclang=EN&mode=req&occ=first&pageIndex=0&part=1&text=

 

Quote

“In addition to the obligation to pay compensation, sporting sanctions shall be imposed on any club found to be in breach of contract or found to be inducing a breach of contract during the protected period. It shall be presumed, unless established to the contrary, that any club signing a professional who has terminated his contract without just cause has induced that professional to commit a breach. The club shall be banned from registering any new players … for two entire and consecutive registration periods.”

 

you're literally a poison pill when you breach contract in your protected period  (isak's ends Aug 26th). That's roughly the protection and the protection against clubs trying to sneakily get players to breach, during protected periods anyway. 

[Kid Icarus]

Understand Shmunderstand, grow some fucking balls