Alexander Isak - International C*nt

[McDog]

1 minute ago, r0cafella said:

No, he's gone but a savvy clubs tells him to sit down and find a solution that works for all and not just for him. 

 

Instead we are scrambling around trying to replace him with players who are far inferior for massive money because we want to peddle him and give him what he wants. 

 

He can be binned next summer on our terms not this summer on his. 

 

 

Look, if it isn't on our terms then next summer it is, I totally agree.

[oldtype]

2 minutes ago, r0cafella said:

It's not often legit world class players literally best in slot players are sold, and they especially aren't usually sold to clubs in the same league under these circumstances we'll run clubs generally don't allow for it. 

 

I don't believe we get 150m out of Liverpool they give us slightly more than they did for Wirtz which is hilariously bad given any metric of comparison. 

if we don’t get 150m (or something close) then I agree we shouldn’t sell.

[r0cafella]

Just now, oldtype said:

if we don’t get 150m (or something close) then I agree we shouldn’t sell.

Respect you opinion brother I really do. I wouldn't ever sell a player for a club who's unsettled him. 

[oldtype]

Just now, Vinny Green Balls said:

that's not necessarily emotional. I already outlined that taking a Parishesque cuntish stance has more value than the money we get. It's pretty obvious that we are inviting more disrespectful behavior from the cartel clubs, and any other player to throw a tantrum in order to get what they want. If there is nothing untoward that we are not seeing, then we totally can afford to hold onto him to make such statements.

It’s absolutely emotional behavior to be refuse to sell a player at an inflated fee that you should accept just so you can “look tough” or whatever.

 

Every club sells their best players when they can get a price they are satisfied with. There is absolutely nothing small time about that. Man United did not become a tin-pot club when they sold Ronaldo to Real, nor did Barcelona become one when they sold Neymar to PSG.

[McDog]

Just now, r0cafella said:

Respect you opinion brother I really do. I wouldn't ever sell a player for a club who's unsettled him. 

 

 

I get what you are saying, believe me. The fact they've done this means you PAY. Otherwise, you are 100% right. You get ZERO discount on our valuation.

[oldtype]

2 minutes ago, r0cafella said:

Respect you opinion brother I really do. I wouldn't ever sell a player for a club who's unsettled him. 

Respect your opinion as well, but I disagree and I would never want the decision makers at the club to operate that way.

[Vinny Green Balls]

3 minutes ago, oldtype said:

It’s absolutely emotional behavior to be refuse to sell a player at an inflated fee that you should accept just so you can “look tough” or whatever.

 

Every club sells their best players when they can get a price they are satisfied with. There is absolutely nothing small time about that. Man United did not become a tin-pot club when they sold Ronaldo to Real, nor did Barcelona become one when they sold Neymar to PSG.

if it's an inflated fee, then yes. But if you are talking about only close to what we value him at, then tough shit. That's not good enough. And we should value him more than he's probably worth in the market. I absolutely disagree with you that taking a tough stance is just being emotional, considering that on the outside at least, it at least looks like we have the leverage. Howe's comments make me wonder, but I still can't come up with a scenario where we don't.

 

 

Edited August 9, 2025 by Vinny Green Balls

[Vinny Green Balls]

If it's 1 million short, tough shit.

[TheBrownBottle]

He can’t be sold to Liverpool at a discount - that sets a really dangerous precedent.

[r0cafella]

3 minutes ago, oldtype said:

Respect your opinion as well, but I disagree and I would never want the decision makers at the club to operate that way.

The other way leads to us being food. As long as your aware of that it's all good. 

[oldtype]

Just now, Vinny Green Balls said:

if it's an inflated fee, then yes. But if you are talking about only close to what we value him at, then tough shit. That's not good enough. And we should value him more than he's probably worth in the market.

 

 

 

As the selling club, I think it’s safe to assume that the fee that we are demanding as or opening negotiating position (150m) is what people at the club deem to be an inflated fee. Again, its only the third highest fee in history.

 

I absolutely do not want our club to be run by people who know that 150m would be a great deal for us but hold out for more because Liverpool hurt our feelings or whatever. We have no margin for error, we need to be cold hearted killers in the transfer market.

[Vinny Green Balls]

and I think that is a little myopic to only consider the fee tbh. We need to be cold hearted killers in the seller's market as well.

 

 

Edited August 9, 2025 by Vinny Green Balls

[oldtype]

Just now, r0cafella said:

The other way leads to us being food. As long as your aware of that it's all good. 

Is Man United food? Liverpool? Barcelona? Chelsea?

 

All have sold their best players at one time or another when their asking price was met. 

[r0cafella]

Just now, Vinny Green Balls said:

and I think that is a little myopic to only consider the fee tbh

150m is fuck all when the replacement who isn't close is 80m 

 

Entire profit of the deal spent on someone worst, not sure where people see the fantastic deal. 

[Kid Icarus]

3 minutes ago, oldtype said:

They’re not our rival next season and in any case, we can use the money to improve us more than Isak would improve them.

Would be utter malpractice not to accept an offer close to 150m just because we’re angry they “tapped him up.” Emotional decision making like that is exactly why fans should not be in charge of clubs 

No, the reason we shouldn't accept is because they are a domestic rival, as I just said.

 

Whether they're not a rival next season or whether it would improve us more than it would Liverpool doesn't override us having the option to avoid selling to a domestic rival and instead sell abroad in 12 months, or even if it's just to ensure we're prepared as a club if in 12 months time a domestic team are still the only option.

 

Right now we're ill prepared for it from executive level, all the way through recruitment and into DoF level and the squad itself.

[Cf]

10 minutes ago, oldtype said:

They’re not our rival next season and in any case, we can use the money to improve us more than Isak would improve them.

Would be utter malpractice not to accept an offer close to 150m just because we’re angry they “tapped him up.” Emotional decision making like that is exactly why fans should not be in charge of clubs 

 

This is utter utter nonsense. 

 

I don't understand how anyone can have such a losing mentality.

[r0cafella]

Just now, oldtype said:

Is Man United food? Liverpool? Barcelona? Chelsea?

 

All have sold their best players at one time or another when their asking price was met. 

Man united sold who to domestic rivals?

Chelsea sold which world class player to domestic rivals?

Barca got embarrassed by figo for sure and did you see how the fans reacted?

[Palestoon]

Its not emotional. It's setting deterrence. It let's teams know you unsettled our players we won't sell to you. It let's players know causing issues won't get you a move.

 

I wouldn't sell him for 150 this summer. Not at this stage of the transfer window. Any "perceived" gain of getting maxim+um value would go right out the window when were forced to replace in just a couple of weeks. Who's going to sell us their top striker a week before the season starts without us getting absolutely rinsed in the process.

 

Force him to stay, send players and clubs a message and sell him for 100 mil next summer worst case scenario. And actually prepare to use the money properly 

[oldtype]

Just now, Kid Icarus said:

No, the reason we shouldn't accept is because they are a domestic rival, as I just said.

 

Whether they're not a rival next season or whether it would improve us more than it would Liverpool doesn't override us having the option to avoid selling to a domestic rival and instead sell abroad in 12 months, or even if it's just to ensure we're prepared as a club if in 12 months time a domestic team are still the only option.

 

Right now we're ill prepared for it from executive level, all the way through recruitment and into DoF level and the squad itself.

I couldn’t care in the slightest about selling domestically or abroad. Even assuming for argument’s sake that we were on the same level as Liverpool, the chances of the two of us being in a title race and Aleksander Isak being the exact margin between them winning and us finishing second is so incredibly low that it’s not worth thinking about.
 

And in any case, as long as we are getting the right fee, the players we bring in will improve us more than Isak improves them.

[Vinny Green Balls]

Just now, Palestoon said:

Its not emotional. It's setting deterrence. It let's teams know you unsettled our players we won't sell to you. It let's players know causing issues won't get you a move.

 

I wouldn't sell him for 150 this summer. Not at this stage of the transfer window. Any "perceived" gain of getting maxim+um value would go right out the window when were forced to replace in just a couple of weeks. Who's going to sell us their top striker a week before the season starts without us getting absolutely rinsed in the process.

 

Force him to stay, send players and clubs a message and sell him for 100 mil next summer worst case scenario. And actually prepare to use the money properly 

exactly. Value should never only be weighed in monetary gain.

[oldtype]

1 minute ago, Palestoon said:

Its not emotional. It's setting deterrence. It let's teams know you unsettled our players we won't sell to you. It let's players know causing issues won't get you a move.

 

I wouldn't sell him for 150 this summer. Not at this stage of the transfer window. Any "perceived" gain of getting maxim+um value would go right out the window when were forced to replace in just a couple of weeks. Who's going to sell us their top striker a week before the season starts without us getting absolutely rinsed in the process.

 

Force him to stay, send players and clubs a message and sell him for 100 mil next summer worst case scenario. And actually prepare to use the money properly 

 

I’m repeating myself, but why would we want to deter them if they’re meeting or exceeding our asking price. We want to induce them to do that, if anything.

[Vinny Green Balls]

We are literally scraping the bottom of the barrel for crumbs right now. No guarantee that we will get much improvement.

[oldtype]

Just now, Vinny Green Balls said:

We are literally scraping the bottom of the barrel for crumbs right now. No guarantee that we will get much improvement.

if the assumption is that we are so incompetently run that we will never buy good players again then this all goes out the window and we might as well fold the club.

[Kid Icarus]

Just now, oldtype said:

I couldn’t care in the slightest about selling domestically or abroad. Even assuming for argument’s sake that we were on the same level as Liverpool, the chances of the two of us being in a title race and Aleksander Isak being the exact margin between them winning and us finishing second is so incredibly low that it’s not worth thinking about.
 

And in any case, as long as we are getting the right fee, the players we bring in will improve us more than Isak improves them.

Well I care, and it would seem big clubs care as they tend to avoid it as much as possible.

 

Isak being 'the difference' in a title race next season is just strawman nonsense, it's about strengthening a rival for the next 5 or so years when our aim is to beat them, it's not controversial or anything.

[Zero]

Another interesting quote from Eddie. To me it reads like “everything is possible”. This is something I didn’t expect after the talks on Wednesday. 
 

PIF and Isaks camp had that talk on Wednesday and surely the first thing we can drawn from the afterward reaction was Isaks wish was not granted, at least not at a price Liverpool currently feel acceptable to offer. Or else Isaks agent would already go and tell Liverpool to do it.

 

But then why Eddie say we cannot block the move by ourselves? It doesn’t make sense unless Isaks contract has a release clause, which per our understanding it does not exist.

 

So the only possibility left is, PIF did agree to sell Isak if several conditions are met. Likely those are the stuffs we are talking about, say replacements brought in first, min 150m, no Liverpool etc.

 

On the other hand, Isaks camp probably also agree to be integrated back to the team if the above conditions cannot be met. Why I say so is the way Eddie talks is like he is still treating Isak as a player within his plan, and he is still protecting him. If there is no way back, I really doubt Howe would take such a stance. It is way weaker than I thought.

 

Isak would be away from the first team until he’s sold or the end of Aug. I think that’s pretty clear. This might not be Isaks camps request, because Howe would also prefer the first team to fully focus on the matches and want Isak to stay away until the issue is resolved.