Alexander Isak - International C*nt

[Emotic]

4 minutes ago, AmericanLooneyToon said:

I can understand people wanting to keep him and not giving in. It's a shitty situation he put us in and giving into him has a similar feeling of having a cactus shoved up my ass but I do wonder if Eddie and the lads are better off just being rid of the guy.

 

All the positivity from our new signings is overshadowed by his bullshit. The whole thing is just exhausting. 

 

 

 

Overwhelming so - fans, management, I reckon players too. Exhausted. But this is somewhat unprecedented. Players have gone on strike before, but never before have these situations been inflamed globally by social media and “client media” to this extent such that the forces that determine a player’s contract situation go well beyond just two parties. And now, three players with links to Newcastle are pulling the same stunt simultaneously. It is something the legal and contracting teams have to deal with moving forwards - putting watertight clauses to prevent such behaviour in future. But in this window, clubs have to decide on what sort of precedent they want to set to draw a line in the sand.

[BermyToon]

13 minutes ago, Emotic said:

Overwhelming so - fans, management, I reckon players too. Exhausted. But this is somewhat unprecedented. Players have gone on strike before, but never before have these situations been inflamed globally by social media and “client media” to this extent such that the forces that determine a player’s contract situation go well beyond just two parties. And now, three players with links to Newcastle are pulling the same stunt simultaneously. It is something the legal and contracting teams have to deal with moving forwards - putting watertight clauses to prevent such behaviour in future. But in this window, clubs have to decide on what sort of precedent they want to set to draw a line in the sand.

Agreed, future contracts need to have clauses around players going on strike.

[Conjo]

1 minute ago, BermyToon said:

Agreed, future contracts need to have clauses around players going on strike.

 

Well, the problem is like...what can they do? Terminate it for breach of contract? No player is going to accept a potentially bankrupting penalty in the contract, ever. Teams already have the opportunity to withhold wages in these cases.

[Peppe]

3 hours ago, GideonShandy said:

The media bandwagon of "He's already gone to Liverpool" rolls on, but our position should still be "Written transfer request and £150 million offer, or he stays and you can try again in the next window."

I really, really hope this is the approach we take. Don't understand selling him for less than we (supposedly) quoted at the start, with the precedent that sets and how weak it makes us look. 

 

I understand that he's toxic but just keep him separated until he begs for forgiveness and just answer the first question about him in every press conference by saying "Nothing has changed, and that's all we're going to say on this matter. Next question".

 

Fuck thus cunt and fuck giving Liverpool what they want, and at a discount too. 

[gazza ladra]

6 hours ago, oldtype said:

I'm with Eddie. I just want this utter pansy to be no longer our problem.

 

IMO his conduct this summer raises serious questions about his character and competitive instincts that make me wonder about whether he'll be able to maintain last year's performance. We should sell high.

 

His conduct certainly makes the notion that he downed tools towards the end of last season more plausible. 

[Kaizero]

 

Almost didn't sit through the entire minute of video, but glad I did as for some reason the last word sent me straight over the edge  

[Optimistic Nut]

Honestly thought there'd have at least been a leak of an accepted bid by now. 

[gdm]

2 minutes ago, Optimistic Nut said:

Honestly thought there'd have at least been a leak of an accepted bid by now. 

Think it’ll go to deadline day. Personally think it’s all but agreed. Once we get that 2nd striker in it’ll happen quickly. Bit gutted about it would rather we made a point of keeping him sat on his arse till at least January. Can see why EH would want him gone tho 

[Zero]

I think we would simply reject any deadline day bid. It looks like the club has a few deals on hand if Liverpool submit a bid that is good enough, which also means if those deals are no longer available then Isak wont be sold

[mattypnufc]

RAT

[TRon]

4 hours ago, AmericanLooneyToon said:

I can understand people wanting to keep him and not giving in. It's a shitty situation he put us in and giving into him has a similar feeling of having a cactus shoved up my ass but I do wonder if Eddie and the lads are better off just being rid of the guy.

 

All the positivity from our new signings is overshadowed by his bullshit. The whole thing is just exhausting. 

 

 

 

 

 

But all of this has been engineered because Liverpool want to buy him at a distressed price. My gut feeling is that they won't go above £120m which is a long way short of the £150m we valued him at, and I read one article this morning which now puts our valuation at £130m. So it seems to be working.

 

If we sell just to be rid of him rather than for what we believe he's really worth, that would justify both his and Liverpool's underhand behaviour. I think we have to have a firm stance on this. If Liverpool really want him, they will pay his true worth. 

[Emotic]

Again to add to the countless times it's been repeated on here - an Alexander Isak is not just 3 or 13 million pounds more than a Florian fucking Wirtz. 

[Cf]

4 minutes ago, Emotic said:

Again to add to the countless times it's been repeated on here - an Alexander Isak is not just 3 or 13 million pounds more than a Florian fucking Wirtz. 

 

It baffling. 

 

And the money in the striker market is so high. Other clubs justifiably hooding out for ridiculous sums. Yet when it comes to the best in class we're supposed to roll over and accept any old fee. 

 

 

Edited August 30, 2025 by Cf

[Cf]

That clip of the agent was excellent btw. 

 

Sky must have known they were going to get something like that from him but it very much had "you're not getting invited back" vibes. 

[bobbydazzla]

People do realise that if he stays and continues to refuse to play then he’s also self-sabotaging the peak period of his own career 

 

It’ll be frustrating for NUFC but we’re a club that have been around since 1892 and Alexander Isak is just a small and annoying footnote in our history  

 

Alexander Isak has a football career that may last for 10-15 years. He has one shot at it, then it’s over. Missing a season in his mid-20’s because of his own cuntishness will severely damage his career
 

If we don’t capitulate and he doesn’t back down, then it’s possible that the cup winning goal for NUFC may well be the highest point he ever reaches 

 

NUFC potentially lose money if their asset isn’t sold and then depreciates, but Isak loses much more than money 

 

 

Edited August 30, 2025 by bobbydazzla

[Slim]

https://vm.tiktok.com/ZNd4KecLc/

[Kilcline]

22 minutes ago, Cf said:

That clip of the agent was excellent btw. 

 

Sky must have known they were going to get something like that from him but it very much had "you're not getting invited back" vibes. 

"Oh fuck, someone who actually knows what they're talking about and not just blagging it" 

[Checko]

If he stays he'll play. Or we can loan him out for a year for a fee and sell him next summer. 

 

It's tricky because it doesn't help the club to just have a huge potential pot of money go to waste, but at the same time, it might also help to set a precedent that this kind of downing tools won't get you what you want - if we can afford to take a hit in the short term and just go: 'Pull this shit and all you'll get is a loan move to Galatasary motherfucker.'

[Keegans Export]

8 minutes ago, Checko said:

If he stays he'll play. Or we can loan him out for a year for a fee and sell him next summer. 

 

It's tricky because it doesn't help the club to just have a huge potential pot of money go to waste, but at the same time, it might also help to set a precedent that this kind of downing tools won't get you what you want - if we can afford to take a hit in the short term and just go: 'Pull this shit and all you'll get is a loan move to Galatasary motherfucker.'

The key point is that being a shit doesn't make us budge from our demands - if that is £150m and two strikers in then we have to stick to that. 

[WinstonFC]

1 hour ago, TRon said:

 

 

But all of this has been engineered because Liverpool want to buy him at a distressed price. My gut feeling is that they won't go above £120m which is a long way short of the £150m we valued him at, and I read one article this morning which now puts our valuation at £130m. So it seems to be working.

 

If we sell just to be rid of him rather than for what we believe he's really worth, that would justify both his and Liverpool's underhand behaviour. I think we have to have a firm stance on this. If Liverpool really want him, they will pay his true worth. 

Which article said 130m?

[1964]

5 hours ago, Peppe said:

I really, really hope this is the approach we take. Don't understand selling him for less than we (supposedly) quoted at the start, with the precedent that sets and how weak it makes us look. 

 

I understand that he's toxic but just keep him separated until he begs for forgiveness and just answer the first question about him in every press conference by saying "Nothing has changed, and that's all we're going to say on this matter. Next question".

 

Fuck thus cunt and fuck giving Liverpool what they want, and at a discount too. 

I think he'll go for less than £150m unfortunately.   

His behaviour means we need him off the books and our purchases, now and the next few days, mean we will need the money.

I just want him gone, he's a boil that needs lancing. 

[RUHRLYASLEEVESUP]

2 minutes ago, 1964 said:

I think he'll go for less than £150m unfortunately.   

His behaviour means we need him off the books and our purchases, now and the next few days, mean we will need the money.

I just want him gone, he's a boil that needs lancing. 

We dont need the money man 

[1964]

Just now, RUHRLYASLEEVESUP said:

We dont need the money man 

We do if we want another striker

[RUHRLYASLEEVESUP]

Just now, 1964 said:

We do if we want another striker

We dont man

[Sibierski]

Genuinely thought we’d receive a bid yesterday. Now I don’t expect a bid today as we’re playing, so it’s over to Sunday. 

 

A £130m+ deal happening on deadline day just feels a non-starter, especially if it needs to hinge on us getting another striker.