Alexander Isak - International C*nt

[Dandy Man]

Glad he's gone, annoyed about everything else

[Colos Short and Curlies]

9 minutes ago, Terraloon said:

The even crazier way that the who FfP/PSR works alongside squad ratio costs work means that you are right but when it comes to squad ratio costs the fee is spread over calendar years  25, 26 & 27 not a one off boost.

 

They do the same thing though.

 

PSR profit booked on one year but that is used to reduce losses over 3 years.

 

SCR takes profit over three years to balance out increase revenue over the se period.

 

In both cases you get a 3 year benefit from the sale 

[Rich]

5 minutes ago, Shadow Puppets said:

Yeah. Why wouldn’t it have been? 🤷‍♂️

 

It was somewhere between £150M and £200M when I did my basic bitch calcs a couple of months ago.

[Shearergol]

1 minute ago, STM said:

For all those critical of ownership, what did you want them to do? Keep Isak for a year and still get less money next year (and it would have likely been 110m then) and risk having a sulky cunt in the squad?

 

The criticism cant be for selling, it has to be for whether they get another striker.

If we kept him another year his book value goes down so selling him for less would give us the same percentage profit, no? It makes no difference. Maybe I’m coping

 

Obviously we’re now in a period of player power if you’re not a sky six team. I’m just concerned on the knock on impact when our other top players fancy a move.

[Shadow Puppets]

Just now, r0cafella said:

Don't think our Revenue is high enough to sustain that without sales. Either that or it's a pump into austerity. 

I think it was pretty widely reported / expected that we would spend £150m-£175m this summer, wasn’t it? We’ve spent about £195m right now, and sold £25m (Longstaff and Kelly go into this summers calculation).

 

Selling Isak for £130m, to me, on the face of it seems like additional budget. So if we spend £50m-£60m of it on a striker today and have some left over, that seems fine to me.

[oldtype]

Guys, we can all start panicking when we actually don’t sign a second striker today. We don’t have to do it preemptively. I’ll be right there with you on the ledge if it doesn’t happen.

[Nucasol]

Just now, Mase said:

As Klopp once said, "it's a bad day for football". 

He also said clubs like Newcastle don’t have a ceiling. We’re looking very hemmed in vs the club that’s dropped £500m in a single window.

 

Pony toothed wanker.

[Vinny Green Balls]

Just now, STM said:

For all those critical of ownership, what did you want them to do? Keep Isak for a year and still get less money next year (and it would have likely been 110m then) and risk having a sulky cunt in the squad?

 

The criticism cant be for selling, it has to be for whether they get another striker.

once again, there's more value beyond the price. If we lost a few million in the summer, so be it. We would have stood are ground, and not allowed the other clubs to bully us. We also would have at least stuck to the basic conditions of our club statement. If we hadn't already had a pretty certain deal lined up when the Isak sale to the Lister cunts went through, then we have put ourselves in a shitty position of having to scramble to not only get the Wilson replacement in, but to not put the world on our Isak replacement's shoulders. That's just weak and may seriously backfire if we can't get a deal done for a competent striker.

[McCormick]

Fuck off. Embarrassing.

[Holmesy]

£35m less than he should have gone for. Fucking prick!

[Shadow Puppets]

I’ll be seeing a few people today that could have some additional info. I’ll share if I find out anything interesting.

[Nucasol]

2 minutes ago, Sibierski said:

Could be worse, could have a brother who’s a Liverpool fan 

[WilliamPS]

Hope he’s fined 6 weeks wages for the missing games today. Or whatever the max fine is.

[The Prophet]

5 minutes ago, ponsaelius said:

We've been absolutely done on the fee when you consider other transfers and the overall striker market.

 

We've undoubtedly been put in a very difficult position by the player and his agent which has drove down the price, but it still feels like a massive capitulation to me.

 

And if we don't get a replacement in... Christ.

 

We've vindicated their behaviour, giving them exactly what they wanted.

 

It's at best spineless. No replacement and it's total negligence.

[Lush Vlad]

Apropos of nothing. Kanye West - Runaway just came up on shuffle. 
 

The lyrics to the chorus fit this saga perfectly  

[Yorkie]

1 minute ago, r0cafella said:

Yes, because it isn't another money. The money is the kick in the teeth, the principle is what has floored us. 

 

And yes, bare in mind we amortise more of his fee by selling next year meaning we can take less then. 

 

Sometimes you have to show your minerals man and we've rolled over here. 

 

This thing about the principle; is there no consideration of the fact the case might be unique? How likely is it we have another player who's literally in the running for being the best in the world? 

[OoOGazOoO]

Can't believe we have sold him on the cheap. I personally think he burned too many bridges to be reintegrated but £125m or £130m is far too cheap.

[Dandy Man]

At least we have a nice discussion about the technicalities and inner workings of PSR to cheer us all up

[Rocker]

[Kid Icarus]

2 minutes ago, STM said:

For all those critical of ownership, what did you want them to do? Keep Isak for a year and still get less money next year (and it would have likely been 110m then) and risk having a sulky cunt in the squad?

 

The criticism cant be for selling, it has to be for whether they get another striker.

It's been done to death but I'd have expected the club to do what other clubs have done in these situations - hold firm and sell on their own terms when it works for the club. As things stand this might work for the club financially short term, but leaving ourselves short on the field undermines that not just in terms of sporting success but in terms of the very same finances they've prioritised over everything - including the club's reputation. 

[r0cafella]

1 minute ago, Shadow Puppets said:

I think it was pretty widely reported / expected that we would spend £150m-£175m this summer, wasn’t it? We’ve spent about £195m right now, and sold £25m (Longstaff and Kelly go into this summers calculation).

 

Selling Isak for £130m, to me, on the face of it seems like additional budget. So if we spend £50m-£60m of it on a striker today and have some left over, that seems fine to me.

My totally rough expectations was 120-150 max. 

 

But then again I'm not really thrilled with what we've done in the market but obviously I hope I'm wrong. 

[STM]

2 minutes ago, r0cafella said:

Yes, because it isn't another money. The money is the kick in the teeth, the principle is what has floored us. 

 

And yes, bare in mind we amortise more of his fee by selling next year meaning we can take less then. 

 

Sometimes you have to show your minerals man and we've rolled over here. 

 

Ive been saying all summer that there is a principle involved.... however you dont run businesses on principle. You have to be pragmatic.

 

I dont like it either but the club have likely known for a while that keeping him was not an option.

[Mike]

12 minutes ago, Yorkie said:

Anyone else's Liverpool-supporting father-in-law staying with them atm?

 

Hemlock.

[r0cafella]

1 minute ago, Yorkie said:

 

This thing about the principle; is there no consideration of the fact the case might be unique? How likely is it we have another player who's literally in the running for being the best in the world? 

Might be lack of sleep or brain power but I'm not sure what your getting at Yorks. 

[Hhtoon]

1 hour ago, Doctor Zaius said:

None of the fees quoted are enough. It's absolutely pathetic from the club to buckle given Liverpool have bullied them into it.

 

Brentford can withstand pressure, why cant we? We've let Liverpool dictate the terms for probably the best striker in the world. 

 

It's soft as shit from the club. 

 

 

 

 

Because they would end up losing their best 2 players and the risk of relegation is far greater for them which would be catastrophic. The ramifications for us aren't as severe, though could be a setback long term. We don't know until Nick W has settled etc and whether we bring someone else in.