Alexander Isak - International C*nt

[Robster]

16 minutes ago, jackyboy said:

Being sports reckons Liverpool have offered £150 million 

As in Andy Gray and Richard Keys ?

[toon25]

21 minutes ago, jackyboy said:

Being sports reckons Liverpool have offered £150 million 

 

That's Keys and Gray saying 80 million now and 60 million later.

[1964]

5 minutes ago, Robster said:

As in Andy Gray and Richard Keys ?

A figure they've agreed in a local back shaving joint

[HayDen Traces]

35 minutes ago, Abacus said:

I agree that there has been a turning point in the media about his behaviour. Every serious pundit has said that he is being completely unprofessional.

 

On balance I still think we have to stick to our guns and not let him go now. Too many negatives with caving in now. I don't much care about him as a person after how he has acted, but I do care about his goals and where the club finishes.

 

So on any new contract, I did like the idea of no increase in the base salary but heavily performance based add ons should he stay for the season with a release clause.

 

He'd have to play well enough to earn that release clause and in hindsight it's probably what should have been offered back in January to kill all this noise.

Great post. Agree 100%

[Coffee_Johnny]

14 hours ago, cubaricho said:

He told the club a long time ago he wanted out this window. 
 

 

 

 

 

I believe the bit about him stating he wanted to leave at the end of last season. It was the only thing which made sense (in this PSR world and our needs in other positions) of going large for Ekitike (before the Isak issue was common knowledge) and larger still for Sesko once it was all leaked. 

[Wallsendmag]

1 hour ago, Optimistic Nut said:

 

Just a gut feeling, probably wrong. Just feel the perception in the media turned massively against him over the weekend, if not today, I think he'll start trying to rebuild bridges shortly.

 

Think it's well past the bridge building stage now. Clearly his team mates have had enough of him now judging by the subtle digs they've been getting in about him in the last week, and I'm yet to speak to a Newcastle fan who ever wants to see him in the 1st team again.

 

I had a walk along to Whitley Park yesterday to watch the U21s. That's the environment he should be playing his trade in this season. If it costs him a World Cup place then that's tough shit.

[Coffee_Johnny]

1 hour ago, KennyUtd said:

What are you suggesting here? That PIF whack this mush? Concrete boots the fella? Pop him in his head? 

Okay, I'm in. 

Makes sense to use our accessible assets 😉
 

Spoiler

Four operators from Saudi special forces. 

 

[gbandit]

I don’t know what I believe, it’s extremely confusing. I think there’s a chance Isak said he’d leave but not in any really concrete terms but I wonder if he gave an ultimatum that he wouldn’t go public until July about wanting to leave in order for us to try and complete some business on bringing someone in, and that’s why he’s gone so nuclear. Otherwise it’s nothing short of sociopathic behaviour. There’s absolutely no doubt that Isak’s behaved appallingly, it’s just about how horrifically bad it’s been really. Making up lies to try and push the move and destroy NUFC in the process is some play 

[healthyaddiction]

5 minutes ago, Coffee_Johnny said:

I believe the bit about him stating he wanted to leave at the end of last season. It was the only thing which made sense (in this PSR world and our needs in other positions) of going large for Ekitike (before the Isak issue was common knowledge) and larger still for Sesko once it was all leaked. 

But by all reports Liverpool contacted us to see Isak was available after we approached Ekitike and we said he wasn't.

 

Also, Elanga is good mates with Isak and Isak clearly pushed for Elanga to sign. Even in Elanga's first interview he talked about looking forward to playing with Isak. It makes no sense if he was always planning to leave.

 

Im not buying the story that he told us he was leaving.

[Elric]

If we ultimately fail to get a striker in (which has a decent probability) and this cunt is still here, refusing to play... the hatred is gonna be off the charts

[80]

6 hours ago, Palestoon said:

The new contract wouldn't be to reward his behavior, it would simply be a face saving exercise for all involved, and to draw a line under this whole summer fiasco.

 

Isak and his agent get better terms and a guarantee to leave next season if a club pay an agreed upon amount, and the club look strong in that they kept a player who they didn't want to sell.

 

It allows both sides to focus on this season and return to the status quo with some dignity in tact

I actually think one of the reasons to give him a wage rise is to send a message to other players - ours and others - that this has never been about us being cheap and trying to screw a top class player on an old contract. Combat the narrative that we've ever been unreasonable there.

 

1 hour ago, Menace said:

 

He's literally living in one of the most developed western countries in the world - not a village in Serbia.

I'm not sure what your point is.

[Coffee_Johnny]

22 minutes ago, healthyaddiction said:

But by all reports Liverpool contacted us to see Isak was available after we approached Ekitike and we said he wasn't.

 

Also, Elanga is good mates with Isak and Isak clearly pushed for Elanga to sign. Even in Elanga's first interview he talked about looking forward to playing with Isak. It makes no sense if he was always planning to leave.

 

Im not buying the story that he told us he was leaving.

Your alternative view requires us to be willing and capable to spend big on Ekitike, when we also planned to keep Isak and sign a GK, CB, CM, and RM. Just didn’t seem plausible to me then and still doesn’t. 

[healthyaddiction]

5 minutes ago, Coffee_Johnny said:

Your alternative view requires us to be willing and capable to spend big on Ekitike, when we also planned to keep Isak and sign a GK, CB, CM, and RM. Just didn’t seem plausible to me then and still doesn’t. 

I don't think it's that ridiculous. We're apparently prepared to spend 40m on Wissa without selling Isak. That's a 30m difference, and in PSR terms that's like 6m extra (compared to signing Wissa) on this years accounts? Maybe we'd have looked at a lower cost midfielder option like that Amir Richardson we were very briefly linked to.

 

 

Edited August 18, 2025 by healthyaddiction

[WilliamPS]

The nature of PSR means we can go all in this year, and not have to sell until June 27 (end next season) thanks to this seasons CL money. And I think that was clearly the intention, Howe spoke about a big summer. 
 

[Si]

56 minutes ago, 1964 said:

A figure they've agreed in a local back shaving joint

 

Back, Sack & Tarmacs?

[Checko]

6 hours ago, Emotic said:

It has popped up every so often in this megathread (also often on Reddit). Evidence has been furnished that this is all a manufactured lie by Ornstein. Quite strong evidence too. I shall repeat them here.

 

1) Ornstein’s most oft-repeated claim is that Isak told the club two weeks before the season ended, that he was going to leave. And Isak apparently repeated it to Eddie Howe on the last day of the season. Problem is, Ornstein himself has a video from that very last day of the season confidently stating that “Isak will stay at Newcastle after they got UCL”. If Isak had told the club he wanted out two weeks before the end of the video (there is yet another claim he told the club last year, but I forgot who reported it), would Ornstein be so confident to announce he was staying? Do you not think that Ornstein and Romano wouldn’t have known about this wantaway request two weeks before the end of the season? And reported on this bombshell?
 

2) Given Isak’s agent’s nuclear behaviour when he wants out, and that Isak has been linked with Arsenal the entire time he’s been here - wouldn’t Arsenal or Liverpool tapped him up seriously; made moves to sign him from the very start of the window if he wanted out much earlier? Why wait until so late in the window? Prior to mid-July, and the Ekitike fiasco, there was no noise at all about Isak leaving, from a media which is rapacious about reporting every single aspect of his apparent desperation to do so.

 

3) Isak featured in our 25/26 kit launch. Media, content, adverts. The works. When Bruno was linked away last season because of that secret “release clause” business, he featured in none of the summer’s kit launch. Because the club rightly wouldn’t waste advertising with a player who might no longer be our player come the end of the window. If Isak were clear and unequivocal about his wish to leave, and communicated it to the club two weeks before the end of the season- why use him in promo material and a kit launch?

 

4) Before and during the point in time when we signed Elanga, Isak was twerking for him to come to us on his Instagram, leaving clues to the fanbase that we were close to Elanga, liking Elangas Instagram posts etc. Like the behaviour of someone excited for an international teammate to join him at club level. Not a sign of someone desperate to exit.

 

5) I haven’t yet found a credible source for this- but when we were apparently in for Liam Delap, his reason for not joining us (very poor in hindsight) was that he wanted to start, and not be cover for Isak. If we had known Isak was adamant on leaving, we would’ve convinced Delap to sign for us. 
 

There are other clues here and there. But for me, the turning point when it all happened was mid-July - Ekitike bid, Liverpool’s “sell us Isak or we buy Eki” threat. It all suddenly kicked off from there. It points to opportunistic, yet naive and stupid counsel from a terrible agent who didn’t draft an exit clause in Isak’s contract, and resorted to gangster tactics only after that to force a move.

 

No way Isak communicated any strong desire to leave much earlier on IMHO. This would’ve been leaked to the ghouls in the media immediately and we’d have heard no end of it as soon as the season ended and the window opened. Personally I was shocked by the outright lies that the media was happy to put out to drive home a narrative. There is no more truth and objectivity in reporting anymore, even from these so-called “Tier 1” journalists.

Personally I'd say it seems perfectly likely he'd say internally he wanted to leave. Doesn't mean he was unhappy at Newcastle, but basically all footballers want to reach the highest level, and he can, and is ready to go to the very top.

 

My take is he said he'd like a move, the club basically said 'tough Ekitikes' and with three years on his deal this is the leverage he's got. I think the club were caught out with the eventual reaction, but we know he wanted out or he wouldn't have behaved like this. It seems to me more unlikely he'd go for the nuclear option as the first resort.

 

1. AFAIK Ornstein said we didn't want to sell and he'd seen no indication Isak wanted out. He can (and did) revise that if he gets new information.

 

2. Lots of moves get done later in the window (though mid July is hardly late) & we've always been adament he's not for sale. Probably Isak tried to force the issue and gave them encouragement to shit stir, maybe hoping to trigger negotiations. Plus we were going for their alternative target triggering them to act. I wonder if the reported tone of our refusal to Liverpool, our absolute unwillingness to even discuss things, even after he'd said he wants to leave, might have made him think he had to down tools to get anywhere. 

 

3. Would add fuel to the fire if Isak wasn't involved in the promo stuff. Plus that was filmed earlier anyway. Bruno was a bit different as he had a release clause so we couldn't stop a sale, but we didn't intend to sell Isak regardless. Guehi's in palace's stuff for example, even with the noise around him.

 

4. I wouldn't read too much into IG likes and such. I'm sure he was happy for his friend to get a good move. He was clearly flirting with Liverpool around the same time, Isak's reps leaked his 'wants to explore other options' thing a few days later.

 

5. Again, our position has alway been we're not selling regardless. We probably weren't expecting the reaction from Isak, but we were always unlikely to give a potential signing from Ipswich the world exclusive that he wants to leave.

 

My take is he told the club he wanted to go to one of the big boys. We said he's not for sale and can meet his ambitions. Note Howe briefing the media at the end of the season how we had money to spend and were going to be aggressive in the market. We've never done that. Seemed to be giving a clear message to the players (or a specific player).

 

But what happens?: miss out on Huijsen, Mbeumo, Pedro, Delap, the guys we want all want to go to the bigger, richer clubs. No CEO replacement, Sporting Director leaves right before the window. New stadium/world class training facilities still not announced. Start of the window was a bit of a shitshow, particularly as a follow-up to last summer., and it doesn't look like we're going to be the ones to get him to the very top.

 

So seems far more likely to me he's said he wants to move, we've flat out refused to even countenence it, then struggled to meet transfer ambitions. He's encouraged Liverpol to make a move, then when we flat out refused to even discuss things with them, even after he'd told us he wants to go, he or his rep decided to down tools or they wouldn't get anywhere. Whereas we were expecting him to be a better pro and worst case he plays one more year and then we can sell him then. 

 

 

Spoiler

Nah not really, this post is already way too long.

 

[Pandamninator]

42 minutes ago, Coffee_Johnny said:

Your alternative view requires us to be willing and capable to spend big on Ekitike, when we also planned to keep Isak and sign a GK, CB, CM, and RM. Just didn’t seem plausible to me then and still doesn’t. 

PSR is rolling three years.

 

The 22/23 splurge (Isak, Botman, Gordon etc) are now not counted towards the calculations.  Next seasons PSR calculations will also no longer include the bulk (if any) of the Tonali and Livramento fees, with Targetts alleged 100k a week salary gone as well.

 

Combined with spending fuck all last year we had plenty of head room to do all that.

 

 

Edited August 18, 2025 by Pandamninator

[SUPERTOON]

We are struggling to get one striker in, never mind two, i don't see how we can let him go. 

[Mattoon]

I don't believe it, I believe he obviously aspires to be at the top of his game and he's reached his peak or there abouts and was probably considering his future himself. I still think this is agent driven and Isak was in no hurry until the dippers came sniffing round to unsettle him. I don't buy that the club were already aware, too much evidence to the contrary.

 

The media has changed its stance but its still infuriating that Liverpool have got off Scott free when they're the instigators in this agitation.

 

 

Edited August 18, 2025 by Mattoon

[Coffee_Johnny]

2 minutes ago, Pandamninator said:

PSR is rolling three years.

 

The 22/23 splurge (Isak, Botman, Gordon etc) are now not counted towards the calculations.  Next seasons PSR calculations will also no longer include the bulk (if any) of the Tonali and Livramento fees.

 

Combined with spending fuck all last year we had plenty of head room to do all that.

 

 

 

You seem very certain about that. I mean, given you don’t have access to the facts. 

[Emotic]

2 minutes ago, SUPERTOON said:

We are struggling to get one striker in, never mind two, i don't see how we can let him go. 

And the struggles are directly related to Isak and his camp airing his dirty linen in public. Brentford are asking 60 mil for a 29 year old on the last year of his contract, precisely because they know we're desperate.

[Pandamninator]

1 minute ago, Coffee_Johnny said:

You seem very certain about that. I mean, given you don’t have access to the facts. 

Eh?

 

PSR rules aren't a state secret.. nor is what year we are in.

 

https://www.espn.com.au/football/story/_/id/40591227/what-financial-fair-play-how-does-work-rules-explained

[Optimistic Nut]

4 minutes ago, SUPERTOON said:

We are struggling to get one striker in, never mind two, i don't see how we can let him go. 

 

He has to stay now surely. All about getting the Wilson replacement and we have the squad we need. 

[TRon]

1 hour ago, STM said:

I agree with @Ronaldothat financially, I dont think we can accuse him of greed, since hes worth alot more than the money hes on....

 

However, my take on the "greedy bastard" chant was more a case of, you've just won a trophy and qualified for the Champions league, dont take this club for granted.

 

I dont think anyone is begrudging ambition but a scorched earth policy is only ever going to be met with anger.

 

Also, "theres only one player who's gone about this the wrong way", isnt exactly the most catchy jingle from the stands.

 

 

My take on the "greedy bastard" chant is that it was just fans venting, and probably fans who are half cut by that time of day so all inhibitions will be out of the window. Fans will be down in the dumps one day, and over the moon the next, that's just the nature of following the game. 

 

The club has to view things more strategically. We can't give up one of the best strikers in the world to an immediate rival when it would weaken us, and they have shown no intention of paying the required fee to do it. 

[Coffee_Johnny]

2 minutes ago, Pandamninator said:

Eh?

 

PSR rules aren't a state secret.. nor is what year we are in.

 

https://www.espn.com.au/football/story/_/id/40591227/what-financial-fair-play-how-does-work-rules-explained

Point stands. I didn’t mean the general PSR rules.