Alexander Isak - International C*nt

[TRon]

1 minute ago, The College Dropout said:

Maybe so. We will never know. Giving him a new contract is done to partly avoid such a situation. It would give his agent an opportunity to try and negotiate a release clause too.

 

Even if he never signed a new contract after protracted negotiations. That closeness would inform the club early, that Isak is likely to want to leave.

 

Mitchell closing down discussions and then leaving left a communication and feeling gap. Which is partly why we ended up being on the backfoot when things turned up.

 

This is why i keep saying "duppy know who fi frighten". The whole contract thing was an indication of a misaligned and fractured club. We didn't manage the situation. We keep saying the club is rudderless - this is part of it. I keep going back to Levy. He manages things from top to bottom, this is what Amanda was doing. Players might be upset and angry, but Levy/Staveley are there to manage the situation as best they can. We didn't have that - that was our first sign of weakness and misalignment.

 

As I keep saying, I don't think a hired gun CEO changes that. When shit gets real some type of Owner needs to intervene and it can't be on Aug 20 something months after the star player lets it known he wants to leave. That doesn't happen with Levy and wouldn't happen with Amanda around.

 

 

Levy is the perfect example of an owner who only spends within his budget. When they were paying for their stadium there was barely any signings. Isak not getting a new contract was also along those lines as he had 4 years left on his contract and Mitchell was counting the pennies. At the end of the day due to PSR, you have to budget otherwise it catches up with you like it did with the sale of Anderson and Minteh. 

[Adam P]

Just now, r0cafella said:

So that means the club didn't follow the strategy I would have. 

 

Unless your telling me, one of Isak, Liverpool or Lemic were the ones who could unilaterally sell him?

 

They followed the strategy up until the point he told them he would stay on strike until January, then they pivoted to a 130m and 2 fantastic players. A good strategy only survives until contact with the enemy, as they say. Meaning when shit really hits the fan, you need to adapt. The team met in March and war-gamed the summer and devised a plan to keep him. That plan fell apart when Isak joined a very small group of cunts in refusing to play for us again. At that moment, not adapting your strategy has bigger costs to the long term health of the club.

[r0cafella]

Just now, Adam P said:

 

They followed the strategy up until the point he told them he would stay on strike until January, then they pivoted to a 130m and 2 fantastic players. A good strategy only survives until contact with the enemy, as they say. Meaning when shit really hits the fan, you need to adapt. The team met in March and war-gamed the summer and devised a plan to keep him. That plan fell apart when Isak joined a very small group of cunts in refusing to play for us again. At that moment, not adapting your strategy has bigger costs to the long term health of the club.

Again so they didn't follow my strategy. I'm not sure if your trying to bait me or being deliberately dense? 

[Kanj]

Oddly enough I really hope he made amends with Eddie and the lads on team. We may never get a word from him (that we’d believe anyway) but Eddie didn’t deserve any of this and neither did lads like Murph, Bruno, Burn, to all the team staff who looked after him. 

[Andy]

8 minutes ago, Adam P said:

 

Its been confirmed by every journalist writing about it that 'keep Isak' was our strategy. 

 

If that was the case, we wouldn't have been bidding on strikers left right and centre, while also putting out the message that two signings would allow the Isak deal to proceed - which ultimately proved to be true. 

 

In my opinion, reading between the lines, the club were up for selling him the moment he went on strike and that first bid came in. At that point it was about replacing him and getting what they considered to be a fair price. 

[Adam P]

1 minute ago, r0cafella said:

Again so they didn't follow my strategy. I'm not sure if your trying to bait me or being deliberately dense? 

 

Howay man. I am saying that was the strategy set out in March, during the now well reported meetings on Isak. That strategy was deemed to be too costly for the club in the last week of August. Back up and scenario planning had to happen. The difference is that you say you would have followed it through and let him strike until January. The club deemed this too costly. 

 

I prefer 'obtuse' to deliberately dense but no, i believe the point i am making. 

[Dembacha]

4 minutes ago, r0cafella said:

Again so they didn't follow my strategy. I'm not sure if your trying to bait me or being deliberately dense? 

 

5 minutes ago, r0cafella said:

Again so they didn't follow my strategy. I'm not sure if your trying to bait me or being deliberately dense? 

Did you let them know of your strategy?

[Adam P]

4 minutes ago, Andy said:

 

If that was the case, we wouldn't have been bidding on strikers left right and centre, while also putting out the message that two signings would allow the Isak deal to proceed - which ultimately proved to be true. 

 

In my opinion, reading between the lines, the club were up for selling him the moment he went on strike and that first bid came in. At that point it was about replacing him and getting what they considered to be a fair price. 

 

Sorry thats just wrong Andy (hi by the way), a good strategy has back up and mitigation. Yasir and Jamie going to Isak's house last week with one last ditch desperate attemtp to persuade him to stay and then pressing the button on the Woltemade deal basically confirms what i am saying. 

[r0cafella]

Just now, Adam P said:

 

Howay man. I am saying that was the strategy set out in March, during the now well reported meetings on Isak. That strategy was deemed to be too costly for the club in the last week of August. Back up and scenario planning had to happen. The difference is that you say you would have followed it through and let him strike until January. The club deemed this too costly. 

 

I prefer 'obtuse' to deliberately dense but no, i believe the point i am making. 

You asked me what I would have done and I've told you. Despite that you keep equating what I would have done with what the club did. 

 

As I said, if you believe the club did the right thing and handled it well that's absolutely fine, however the appearance we've given is we tuck our tail. That's it. 

 

I'm aware why the club did what they did and it doesn't change my impression of it. 

[Kid Icarus]

The funny thing is that for all that a lot of Liverpool fan's are revelling in this, if you want to put your amateur psychology hat on, it just comes across is very basic insecurity and taking out what happened to them on another fanbase to make themselves feel better.

 

They know and we know what footballers are like, their place in 'the foodchain' couldn't even be overcome when it came down to whether their local, Liverpool supporting academy starboy wanted to stay at Liverpool or go to Real Madrid. I bet their memories that include him are tainted now as well. Relate to it with Isak? Naaaah, just do what the toxic Real Madrid fans did.

 

To them they're the most important football club in the world and they're fiercely proud of their club - I don't mind that at all, because Newcastle to me is the most important football club in the world, we're all bursting with pride. absolutely no one else matters, and the thought of players wanting to be anywhere else once they're here is alien to us - we're fiercely proud or at least we should be, and should never think of another club as being inherently or in a fixed position as being better or above us in the foodchain imo. In my mind those positions are moveable and my ambition is for Newcastle to be number one.

 

I think that applies to most fanbases, everything above can and does apply to the average Villa, Everton, or West Ham fan, but what's so annoying about the stereotypical Liverpool fan in-particular (although this applies to Man United massively as well) is that they can't fathom that the pride that they have for their club applies to other clubs' fanbases too. For one reason or another they're convinced that there's something extra special about their club and their love for it.

 

So when a player acts the absolute cunt to them, they're completely dumbfounded because in their minds Liverpool are the be-all-and-end-all. 'Why on earth would a scouser want to go to Real Madrid!?' But when a player acts the cunt to get to them, it's not even cognitive dissonance, because it just fits neatly into the same mindset that was dumbfounded 5 minutes ago that thinks of Liverpool as the be-all-and-end-all. The Newcastle fan dumbfounded that a Geordie would want to go to Liverpool doesn't compute to them, they just turn into the Real Madrid supporter they claim to hate.

 

It's insufferable, particularly as it's a mindset that doesn't just play out in their fanbase but right across the sports media and pundit class. Carragher was so fucking close when he was saying about how he doesn't understand why 'people are telling Liverpool fans how they should be feeling' over Trent - yet there's zero chance he'd make that the focus of any discussion about Isak beyond it being a quick aside, before getting back to how in the end it's all brilliant for his club. That's part of the bias that he (and Neville) is oblivious to having.

 

The hypocrisy is off the scale - when Trent does it they're Newcastle fans with Isak, when Isak does it they're Real Madrid fans with Trent. And when it's highlighted they point to the non-existent hypocrisy or actions of others to vindicate it - in our case, this imagined narrative that we as fans acted the same as they did with Isak over Wissa, which is where the difference kicks in, because it's utter bollocks. 

 

 

Edited September 2, 2025 by Kid Icarus

[r0cafella]

1 minute ago, Dembacha said:

 

Did you let them know of your strategy?

I did, formal email and all. 

[Adam P]

1 minute ago, r0cafella said:

You asked me what I would have done and I've told you. Despite that you keep equating what I would have done with what the club did. 

 

 

 

I may have got it wrong but my understanding was that you both had the same strategy (dont sell) all summer but then the club folded whereas you said you wouldnt have folded. 

 

[duo]

It is clear to me now that he always just saw Newcastle as a stepping stone - the man is clearly arrogant and doesn't realise the part Newcastle played in his development.  Got to laugh at Ekitike though - lad will clearly play second fiddle to Isak.  He's the No 1. and Etikike is nothing more than is deputy - he'd have been the main man here.  

[r0cafella]

Just now, Adam P said:

 

I may have got it wrong but my understanding was that you both had the same strategy (dont sell) all summer but then the club folded whereas you said you wouldnt have folded. 

 

As I've said and I will say one last time for you. 

 

I wouldn't have sold to Liverpool in this window no matter what. 

[Adam P]

Just now, r0cafella said:

As I've said and I will say one last time for you. 

 

I wouldn't have sold to Liverpool in this window no matter what. 

 

Areet Herr Flick, i hear you. 

[r0cafella]

Just now, Adam P said:

 

Areet Herr Flick, i hear you. 

I've got no issue with discussing the matter, but repeating myself isn't it. 

 

But again, you were equating the approach I wanted us to take with the one we took and they aren't the same so I wanted to clarify. 

[Mattoon]

I think its obvious that the strategy was to keep Isak at all costs but it would be foolish not to look into fallback options with stikers such as Ekitike and Sesko, both of which I think were the long term replacements for Isak rather than short term with a view to moving him on next summer when there would be more big clubs with an eye on the situation and money in their pockets.

 

What transpired was a scorched earth tactic from Isak that led the club to realise that we either try and compete on 3 fronts until January with one striker or we allow him his move and we make the best of the situation. The latter makes the most sense from a purely business stand point, personally, much like others, I'd have let him rot, but that's an emotional reaction that has an element of self harm.

 

I think in the long run it will be apparent that the club made the right choice, Woldemade is a calculated risk but if he lives up to his potential we'll all soon forget about this rat and start to worry about losing him instead!

[macphisto]

2 minutes ago, duo said:

It is clear to me now that he always just saw Newcastle as a stepping stone - the man is clearly arrogant and doesn't realise the part Newcastle played in his development.  Got to laugh at Ekitike though - lad will clearly play second fiddle to Isak.  He's the No 1. and Etikike is nothing more than is deputy - he'd have been the main man here.  

To a certain extent that's on us. If we don't want to be seen as a stepping stone then we need to be far more aggressive in circumventing PSR and exploiting every loophole. 

[The College Dropout]

23 minutes ago, r0cafella said:

Did we keep him?

The bluster man.

 

Did Brentford respond to Wissa's statement?

 

The bluster of our owners man... all you can do is judge their actions. Their words mean nothing.

[Adam P]

A good strategy has to be formed out of the realm of what is possible. 

 

To explain why i am making these points, 'Dont sell to Liverpool' is equivalent to a 'Keep Isak' strategy when Liverpool are the only ones who want to spend 130m and the player wont go anywhere else.

 

@r0cafella 

 

 

Edited September 2, 2025 by Adam P

[r0cafella]

Just now, Adam P said:

A good strategy has to be formed out of the realm of what is possible. 

 

To explain why i am making these point, 'Dont sell to Liverpool' is equivalent to a 'Keep Isak' strategy when Liverpool are the only ones who want to spend 130m and the player wont go anywhere else. 

Was it impossible to keep him?

[Adam P]

Just now, r0cafella said:

Was it impossible to keep him?

 

Good question. We dont know as we werent in that room with Yasir and Jamie.

[Turnbull2000]

So Isak was in discussions with Liverpool as far back as April then? Not entirely surprising I suppose. He'd been set on it for months.

 

 

Edited September 2, 2025 by Turnbull2000

[r0cafella]

Just now, Adam P said:

 

Good question. We dont know as we werent in that room with Yasir and Jamie.

Cmon bro, seriously. 

 

He had a contract with no means of getting out of it. Whatever he said has no relevance to that. 

 

This is precisely why I described what we did as folding because it's what happened. 

[Adam P]

1 minute ago, r0cafella said:

Cmon bro, seriously. 

 

He had a contract with no means of getting out of it. Whatever he said has no relevance to that. 

 

This is precisely why I described what we did as folding because it's what happened. 

 

I agree we folded but what he apparently said was 'i will continue to refuse to train or play if you dont let me go' which for me explains the fold from PIF. A harsh decision for PIF to make and as @Mattoon just said, one that a fan wouldnt take but may prove to be the right one for the long term health of the club.