Alexander Isak - International C*nt

[gbandit]

Nope

[Matt1892]

Offer him and his agent a meeting to discuss a proposed end to the issue, at the Saudi Embassy in London.

[STM]

Just now, Kid Icarus said:

The narrative is the situation tbf

 

We could easily put a pin in all of this if we wanted to.

 

Well ok, from that stand point I get what you mean.

 

I suppose the club simply dont have a policy of messy public statements. They rarely go well and they set a bad precedent IMO.

 

A figurehead at the club doing a well timed interview would be more the ticket. Sadly none exist.

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Vinny Green Balls said:

Only if there is sufficient evidence. In our latest doc, there was a verbal agreement made between the owner of the car and the caretaker that if it was sold, he would get 10%. The owner contradicted himself in court. And since the caretaker promoted the car, got it into museums and shows, and traveled with it, his lawyer argued that he did this on the. Asks if getting 10%. Given that he kept all of the paperwork of promoting  the car, his case became much stronger. The jury ruled in the caretaker’s favor, but mainly because the owner perjured himself, and based on all of the peripheral  documentation that the caretaker kept. If he didn’t have all this, it may have been much much harder to convince the jury.

Presumably American law as civil cases don’t have jury hearings in UK? And from my old law school days that would be the same America that has different laws across the (50?) different states?

 

 

Edited August 19, 2025 by Foxy Ruel

[AyeDubbleYoo]

I assumed broken promises was about being allowed to leave, not a new contract?  

[TK-421]

Just now, Pandamninator said:

I'm fucking shook.

 

A rational, even keeled set of takes from Collymore, delivered in a deliberately worded fashion.

Aye, he's getting pelters off Liverpool fans now, accusing him of doing similar to join them from Forest, in justifying Isaks actions. 

Absolutely vile club and fanbase.

[Kid Icarus]

Just now, Matt1892 said:

Offer him and his agent a meeting to discuss a proposed end to the issue, at the Saudi Embassy in London.

Yet another edgy pick me post from you today is it?

[relámpago blanco]

[Smal]

1 minute ago, Matt1892 said:

Offer him and his agent a meeting to discuss a proposed end to the issue, at the Saudi Embassy in London.

are you all right mate?

[Moose]

20 minutes ago, Chris L said:

Imagine after all this. They weren’t serious and weren’t fully interested in signing him. One of their options but not all out like the Twitter mongs have pushed. But instead they’ve kept quiet and let the others push the narrative and chucked in one lowball bid knowing we’d say no.. then not returned with a new one. Knowing it would completely fuck things up for Isak here. Weakening us in the mean time now having a forward who is that good but has destroyed his career here. 

 

So this was Liverpool's 'power play' all along. Not necessarily buying both Isak and Ekitike but ripping away Isak's mask, exposing that he is no legend in the making but a venomous rat.

 

Nobody wins in this scenario, Liverpool won't get Isak for a cut price, we all now despise this cunt and his career is as good as finished here but the biggest loser of all is Isak who has in effect divorced his loving wife and abandoned his kids to chase after a prettier girl who once kissed him at a nightclub 

 

 

Edited August 19, 2025 by Moose

[Mike]

1 minute ago, AyeDubbleYoo said:

I assumed broken promises was about being allowed to leave, not a new contract?  

 

Whatever is most convenient for the narrative that witless prick is worming to conjure up.

[Kid Icarus]

1 minute ago, STM said:

 

Well ok, from that stand point I get what you mean.

 

I suppose the club simply dont have a policy of messy public statements. They rarely go well and they set a bad precedent IMO.

 

A figurehead at the club doing a well timed interview would be more the ticket. Sadly none exist.

Yeah, definitely. Just don't like all of this landing on Eddie tbh, it looks poor in that respect too.

[MagPar]

18 minutes ago, M4 said:

There's conflicting reports about what is this alleged promise that has been broken.

 

Promise of a new deal last summer, or promise that he would be allowed to leave? 

 

It's obviously telling that Isak's camp aren't being more specific.

 

 

 

They'll be discussing which lie sounds best.

[Matt1892]

1 minute ago, cubaricho said:

Is there some sort of legal binding aspect to a transfer request on our end if he puts one in?

No, we can reject his request if we want.

 

It just means that he won’t be entitled to any loyalty payments that are usually paid when someone moves and gets possibly a percentage of fee.

[Vinny Green Balls]

13 minutes ago, Foxy Ruel said:

Presumably American law as civil cases don’t have jury hearings in UK? And from my old law school days that would be the same America that has different laws across the (49?) different states?

7th amendment 

 

the  insurance for the car was $4.2 million in 1997 when it disappeared, so it involved a jury.

 

i imagine most states would do jury trial for that much unless those invoked requested a bench trial. Don’t think the case was complicated, even though the car disappeared, and wasn’t sold.

 

 

Edited August 19, 2025 by Vinny Green Balls

[gdm]

4 minutes ago, The Prophet said:

Unless it always has been about cash, the new contract narrative doesn't really add up.

The new contract would no doubt have had a release clause in it. It’s all about getting his move

[Pandamninator]

2 minutes ago, AyeDubbleYoo said:

I assumed broken promises was about being allowed to leave, not a new contract?  

Press are saying his justification is the contract 

Which he has refused to discuss for 6 weeks with the club.  Kind of knocks him off his high horse.

[Elric]

Sunshine Restaurant must condemn

[oldtype]

3 minutes ago, Foxy Ruel said:

Presumably American law as civil cases don’t have jury hearings in UK? And from my old law school days that would be the same America that has different laws across the (50?) different states?

 

 

 

 

It's not that bad in practice. Most of the time the law isn't that different other than with regards to fairly granular issues, and if you have a "national" practice you're only really practicing in a few states anyway (California, New York, Delaware etc.)

[The College Dropout]

1 minute ago, Unbelievable said:

It would have, but it would also have further restrained our spending under PSR, so quite frankly the club were completely in the right to postpone those talks until closer to the end of his contract.

It wouldn’t really.  An extra year on his contract meant we could give him another £2m per year at equal amortisation cost. Another £3m is like Lascelles salary money - it’s not a lot. An extra year £2-3m per year in total additional PSR cost is not a lot. 
 

And again - it prevents this situation. Which is ultimately worth a lot more than £2-3m.  
 

Chelsea are idiots mostly. But they were right to give Palmer the new deal and they did so after about 18 months on an already 7 year deal or whatever it was. You pay him his worth and he can’t complain- all the while locking him down to protect his value. 
 

This situation is awful.  Isak has made poor decision after poor decision. But the club has made multiple poor decisions too. Eales and Mitchell the repeat offenders. They didn’t manage the fans or Eddie well im not surprised they didn’t manage the players well either. 

[kingxlnc]

I expect the atmosphere on Monday to be like the Arsenal game in 21/22 when we beat them 2-0 or the Man U game where Howe said let's give them a fast game - can imagine the players being well up for it - an extra 10%. Think we'll win comfortably. Howe is great at the siege mentality thing.

[TBG]

Really makes you appreciate the loyalty from the likes of Ameobi and Dummett 

[nufc123]

8 minutes ago, Steve Charlton said:

 

Still no transfer request! 

Coward.

[Matt1892]

Just now, gdm said:

The new contract would no doubt have had a release clause in it. It’s all about getting his move

This is a really good point, it wouldn’t just be about money but him having the ability to jump ship without us having to accept an offer, getting him out of the position his agent put him in by not asking for a release clause in the first place.

[Jinky Jim]

3 minutes ago, Matt1892 said:

No, we can reject his request if we want.

 

It just means that he won’t be entitled to any loyalty payments that are usually paid when someone moves and gets possibly a percentage of fee.

It used to be 10%of the transfer fee.. don’t know if that’s still the case but if so, he would be throwing away 15m if he put in a transfer request.