Jump to content

Alexander Isak - International C*nt


Ha ha ha?  

179 members have voted

  1. 1. Hohoho

    • Hahaha
      94
    • Heeheehee
      85


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, The College Dropout said:

Letting things get so bad with Isak is also partly the fault of the ownership. A dickheas DOF that fucked off and a sick CEO partially led to the gao between Isak and the club. 

I don't agree. Isak's actions this summer prove that even if he'd extended his contract last year, you'd have pulled this move this summer or next if a big team came knocking.

 

Let's stop the finger-pointing. It's obvious Isak wouldn't have been sold if he hadn't caused a fuss. Once he refused to play and sign a new contract, it was clear what was going to happen.

 

This sucks for us fans, but it's the best thing for the club, especially Eddie and that the most important thing.

 

As i mentioned earlier. If the club and Eddie felt they could reintegrate him into the team they would have kept him.

Selling him shows there was no hope at all for that. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Optimistic Nut said:

It does feel we dropped the ball at some point. Whether it was Staveley, Mitchell, Howe, it seems clear Isak's been told something and it's not happened. The way he's went on has been abysmal but we might have at least got a few games out of him and a few goals/points before he left. Mitchell is the easy one to blame and it's probably him, with him losing his job as a result of it. 

 

If it was Mitchell though and we've acted by sacking him, Isak could have given the squad and Howe the courtesy of showing up until we fixed things, whether it be a contract or selling on the right terms. 

 

 

Yeah, none of it really makes sense to me. If the promises were made by someone who is no longer here, Isak couldn't expect them to be honoured. And if they were broken by someone no longer here, then why not give the club another chance. 

 

Seems most logical that him and his agent have latched onto whatever issue it was and used it to engineer a move that will make them both loads of money. 

 

This is why the blame has to fall 80-90% on Isak and his camp. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, AyeDubbleYoo said:

 

Depends what you think will happen during those 3 years. 

what? All it means is that the club was in a fairly strong position of leverage based on his remaining contract. If he decided to not play all season and we tried to sell next summer to no avail, and he tried the same again the following season when he turns 28...now that would be unprecedented.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, tarie4 said:

I don't agree. Isak's actions this summer prove that even if he'd extended his contract last year, you'd have pulled this move this summer or next if a big team came knocking.

 

Let's stop the finger-pointing. It's obvious Isak wouldn't have been sold if he hadn't caused a fuss. Once he refused to play and sign a new contract, it was clear what was going to happen.

 

This sucks for us fans, but it's the best thing for the club, especially Eddie and that the most important thing.

 

As i mentioned earlier. If the club and Eddie felt they could reintegrate him into the team they would have kept him.

Selling him shows there was no hope at all for that. 

it's hard to make that determination before the window slams shut. Once again, Suarez is the mother of all cunts. And he somehow had one of his most productive seasons ever after his tantrum.

 

 

Edited by Vinny Green Balls

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, Vinny Green Balls said:

what? All it means is that the club was in a fairly strong position of leverage based on his remaining contract. If he decided to not play all season and we tried to sell next summer to no avail, and he tried the same again the following season when he turns 28...now that would be unprecedented.

 

What I mean is, you have to expect he will play to the best of his ability to warrant keeping him. Otherwise his value is just going to rapidly decline over those 3 years. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, KennyUtd said:

Out of interest does anyone know what kind of money his agent makes from this?


Assuming he is on £250K a week, the total contract over 6 years (reported length) would be £78M.  Agents typically get between 5-10% of salary, and the fee is paid over the length of the contract.  So up to £7.8M.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, McCormick said:

No matter how you want to dress this up; we’ve come out of this the big losers. It’s actually embarrassing.

I agree, but not much we can do if he just didn't want to play for us.

 

 

Edited by DoricGinola

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, McCormick said:

No matter how you want to dress this up; we’ve come out of this the big losers. It’s actually embarrassing.

If losers pocket £130m, can I please be designated a loser? :lol: 

Link to post
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Yorkie said:

 

Owen didn't make an absolutely enormous contribution to three of the best years I've ever had supporting the club, but this isn't a fun game...

This...Owen was openly a twat from the start, repeatedly telling everyone he didnt really want to be here and only came so he'd get enough game time to be available for England. 

 

Isaks is far more of a betrayal as he was a total hero, contributed massively and could quite easily have become a legend. Now he'll be remembered as a disloyal stroppy git who threw his toys away because he didnt get an increase in his (probably quite substantial) wage

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, AyeDubbleYoo said:

 

What I mean is, you have to expect he will play to the best of his ability to warrant keeping him. Otherwise his value is just going to rapidly decline over those 3 years. 

On a temporary basis, I'd expect him to continue to play for the shop window. Football has Memento level memories. If he utterly disappeared for a year, especially if the bin dippers have a wildly successful one with Ekitike, then he'd probably be a less attractive option all around, and clubs wouldn't want to pay him 300k a week. He wouldn't only hurt us, but himself in the process.

Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, The Prophet said:

 

We absolutely do need to trade players to navigate PSR, but that should be on our terms. Not on Isak's and definitely not on Liverpool’s, which is exactly what we've done. 

 

They've unsettled him, he's taken the piss and we've responded by giving them both exactly what they want. The blueprint is set for the next time the cartel come calling.

We can choose not to give them what they want but it would be cutting off our nose to spite our face. We aren't Liverpool/Chelsea/Man U right now. We don't have comparable commercial revenues and we don't have a flow of U21 academy players we can sell for high fees. It sucks but until those two things change, we are always going to be vulnerable when a player decides they want to leave. We absolutely could tell them to fuck off and then we'd be totally fucked next summer when we hit the PSR wall again. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, Vinny Green Balls said:

On a temporary basis, I'd expect him to continue to play for the shop window. Football has Memento level memories. If he utterly disappeared for a year, especially if the bin dippers have a wildly successful one with Ekitike, then he'd probably be a less attractive option all around, and clubs wouldn't want to pay him 300k a week. He wouldn't only hurt us, but himself in the process.

 

Yeah you may be right, or he may have refused to play or play half-arsed. I'm just saying it's something that will have to be factored in. 

 

It's not like a club has come knocking for someone with a long contract and who is committed to the club. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Just now, AyeDubbleYoo said:

 

Yeah you may be right, or he may have refused to play or play half-arsed. I'm just saying it's something that will have to be factored in. 

 

It's not like a club has come knocking for someone with a long contract and who is committed to the club. 

if he played half-assed for a season, then what club would be willing to offer him such a massive wage? He'd depreciate his own bank account as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Vinny Green Balls said:

 

if he played half-assed for a season, then what club would be willing to offer him such a massive wage? He'd depreciate his own bank account as well.

 

I don't necessarily disagree, we just don't know and can't know the conversations that happened between him and the club. 

 

Logically none of this should be happening, yet it is. 

 

 

Edited by AyeDubbleYoo

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...