Alexander Isak - International C*nt

[Dr Venkman]

24 minutes ago, Wallsendmag said:

 

Don't even think the MOTM was announced over the tannoy. Definitely not during the match.

 

[gdm]

On 05/10/2025 at 11:45, BlueStar said:

Don't remember him grabbing his face and hoying himself on the floor like that when he played for us. Also don't remember him crossing himself and pointing to the sky each time he came on the pitch for us, where's that come from? 

I noticed that yesterday don’t think I ever noticed him doing it for us 

[gbandit]

BAC - born again cunt 

[tarie4]

On 05/10/2025 at 07:54, The College Dropout said:

Don’t necessarily agree. Isak would give us a much better chance of securing the £50m p/a you get from the CL.  And we spent all his fee on just 2 players ourselves. 

How did we spend all his fee on two players? 

[tarie4]

On 05/10/2025 at 12:11, Cf said:

 

Well Isak is more than set for life with the money he's on. Maybe he doesn't really care beyond that. 

My thoughts exactly. 

[The College Dropout]

28 minutes ago, tarie4 said:

How did we spend all his fee on two players? 

Woltemade and Wissa cost what £115m? Sorry 92% of the fee then. 

[nufcjmc]

3 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

Woltemade and Wissa cost what £115m? Sorry 92% of the fee then. 

Was it not 69 and 55 for them both respectively? Minus sell on fee % to rats old club its all of it "gone," isn't it?

 

 

Edited October 6, 2025 by nufcjmc

[Matt1892]

Man of the match announcements at the game is only at lower league games now, usually as part of the match sponsorship package.

 

 

Edited October 6, 2025 by Matt1892

[Checko]

3 minutes ago, nufcjmc said:

Was it not 69 and 55 for them both respectively? Minus sell on fee % to rats old club its all of it "gone," isn't it?

 

 

 

Don't forget the signing bonuses and agent fees we will have paid as well!

[tarie4]

23 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

Woltemade and Wissa cost what £115m? Sorry 92% of the fee then. 

Is that how the accounting is done? 

 

PSR, FFP, etc. Is that how we look at it? 

I thought we didn't have a cash flow problem, more a headroom problem? 

For a guy thats into particulars/facts etc thats an odd take. 

 

Big Nick and Wissa fees dont amount to the sell of isak. If we being factually in an accounting sense.

 

 

 

Edited October 6, 2025 by tarie4

[Checko]

Mind you, the big W will make us a lot back in shirt letter sales.

[nufcjmc]

1 minute ago, tarie4 said:

Is that how the accounting is done? 

Appreciate its not my place to reply but think this year will show a big chunk coming in but if 3 year cycles PSR continues then the amortisation costs of the two strikers need to be paid for the other accounting years via income or sales. 

 

Isaks fee essentially did pay for the two players almost outright but the club can look to "spin it out" into more spending if the income/revenues continue to go up too. 

[tarie4]

5 minutes ago, nufcjmc said:

Appreciate its not my place to reply but think this year will show a big chunk coming in but if 3 year cycles PSR continues then the amortisation costs of the two strikers need to be paid for the other accounting years via income or sales. 

 

Isaks fee essentially did pay for the two players almost outright but the club can look to "spin it out" into more spending if the income/revenues continue to go up too. 

But we didnt bank 125/30. isak still had book value, as well as a sell on clause.

Its factually wrong to say we have spent all the Isak money, when in actual fact we havent. 

 

 

 

 

Edited October 6, 2025 by tarie4

[nufcjmc]

1 minute ago, tarie4 said:

But we didnt bank 125/30. isak still had book value, as well as a sell on clause.

Its factually wrong to say we have spent all the Isak money, when in actual fact we havent. 

 

 

 

 

 

I dont quite follow sorry (this is why I dont get involved with accountacy debates). 

 

We still had a book value for Isak yes, we had a reported 5 or 10% rumoured sell on % to go back to his old club so all of the 133 or whatever it was isnt "working capital" 

 

We saved year on year the amortisation costs for the others years left on his deal as he was no longer here and replaced it with more spending and costs over the 5 years on big Nick and was it 3 or 4 on Wissa? 

 

If we didnt "spend" any of the Isak money/income from the sale what did we spend to make the purchases possible? 

 

[tarie4]

5 minutes ago, nufcjmc said:

I dont quite follow sorry (this is why I dont get involved with accountacy debates). 

 

We still had a book value for Isak yes, we had a reported 5 or 10% rumoured sell on % to go back to his old club so all of the 133 or whatever it was isnt "working capital" 

 

We saved year on year the amortisation costs for the others years left on his deal as he was no longer here and replaced it with more spending and costs over the 5 years on big Nick and was it 3 or 4 on Wissa? 

 

If we didnt "spend" any of the Isak money/income from the sale what did we spend to make the purchases possible? 

 

I dont know where you got this. 

[The Prophet]

Doesn't really matter whether we "spent" the Isak money. His sale will have a beneficial impact on our rolling PSR calc.

[tarie4]

28 minutes ago, nufcjmc said:

I dont quite follow sorry (this is why I dont get involved with accountacy debates). 

 

We still had a book value for Isak yes, we had a reported 5 or 10% rumoured sell on % to go back to his old club so all of the 133 or whatever it was isnt "working capital" 

 

We saved year on year the amortisation costs for the others years left on his deal as he was no longer here and replaced it with more spending and costs over the 5 years on big Nick and was it 3 or 4 on Wissa? 

 

If we didnt "spend" any of the Isak money/income from the sale what did we spend to make the purchases possible? 

 

For arguments sake lets say we banked half the transfer fee for Isak as profit (after book value, sell on clause etc) Thats 65 million booked into this year's accounts, do we book 69 and 55 also in this year's accounts? Or something like 18 and 15 (33) which still leaves 32. Its not really outrageous to say the Isak money paid for all our transfer business this summer, from a PSR point of view. 

 

Which for us is massive considering our revenue keeps growing and with champions league money also coming in. That sale has probably set us up nicely for the next 2 summers. (The 3 year cycle)

 

 

Edited October 6, 2025 by tarie4

[The College Dropout]

45 minutes ago, tarie4 said:

Is that how the accounting is done? 

 

PSR, FFP, etc. Is that how we look at it? 

I thought we didn't have a cash flow problem, more a headroom problem? 

For a guy thats into particulars/facts etc thats an odd take. 

 

Big Nick and Wissa fees dont amount to the sell of isak. If we being factually in an accounting sense.

 

 

 

 

This is weird questioning.

 

I said we spent all the Isak money on 2 players... that is a fact (well 93% of it). I didn't say anything about PSR or FFP. 

 

[tarie4]

2 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

This is weird questioning.

 

I said we spent all the Isak money on 2 players... that is a fact (well 93% of it). I didn't say anything about PSR or FFP. 

 

Well its not a fact clearly. 

[nufcjmc]

28 minutes ago, tarie4 said:

For arguments sake lets say we banked half the transfer fee for Isak as profit (after book value, sell on clause etc) Thats 65 million booked into this year's accounts, do we book 69 and 55 also in this year's accounts? Or something like 18 and 15 (33) which still leaves 32. Its not really outrageous to say the Isak money paid for all our transfer business this summer, from a PSR point of view. 

 

Which for us is massive considering our revenue keeps growing and with champions league money also coming in. That sale has probably set us up nicely for the next 2 summers. (The 3 year cycle)

 

 

 

I am not accounting smart to debate this so won't make myself any more foolish. 

 

The fee in laymens terms paid for the two forwards nearly is all I was agreeing to TCD point. 

 

How this is expressed in the accounts is a different matter but the fee for him only comes once in the accounts the subsequent annual costs of the two of them still need to be paid for year on year either through income or sales. 

 

Obviously this will depend if psr stays or we move to a squad cost model or a hybrid/something else.

 

 

Edited October 6, 2025 by nufcjmc

[dcmk]

1 hour ago, The College Dropout said:

Woltemade and Wissa cost what £115m? Sorry 92% of the fee then. 

 

We were going to get Wilsons replacement regardless of Isak.  So the money was already earmarked.  

[oldtype]

23 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

This is weird questioning.

 

I said we spent all the Isak money on 2 players... that is a fact (well 93% of it). I didn't say anything about PSR or FFP. 

 

 

The thing is, the actual money doesn't matter for us because we have a lot of money. Only thing that matters is the PSR/FFP book value. And from that perspective, selling Isak still gives us a great deal of flexibility even taking into account the (steep) cost of the two strikers who came in.

[nufcjmc]

3 minutes ago, dcmk said:

 

We were going to get Wilsons replacement regardless of Isak.  So the money was already earmarked.  

Do we spend that much on 2 players if the fee for the rat wasn't that big though? There was a point before Wilson left we offered him a contract albeit an incentive based one to stay. 

 

How wisely we spent it and what the actual budget was prior to sales coming into the summer was anyones guess though.

 

Sure Craig no hope was peddling 75m at one point we went on to spend over 200m before sales didn't we?

[oldtype]

1 minute ago, nufcjmc said:

Do we spend that much on 2 players if the fee for the rat wasn't that big though? There was a point before Wilson left we offered him a contract albeit an incentive based one to stay. 

 

How wisely we spent it and what the actual budget was prior to sales coming into the summer was anyones guess though.

 

Sure Craig no hope was peddling 75m at one point we went on to spend over 200m before sales didn't we?

 

Don't think it's much of a stretch to say that we were going to have to overpay for one of the two strikers anyway even if we kept Isak. We weren't going to go into the season with Wilson on a pay-as-your-play or someone like DCL on a free as our second striker.

 

 

Edited October 6, 2025 by oldtype

[nufcjmc]

Just now, oldtype said:

 

Don't think it's much of a stretch to say that we were going to have to overpay for one of the two strikers anyway even if we kept Isak. We weren't going to go into the season with Wilson on a pay-as-your-play or someone like DCL on a free as our second striker.

 

 

 

True but without that sort of fee coming in you assume that the budget for a striker wasn't originally 70m it wouldnt have made sense had the rat not wanted to leave to play second fiddle with other areas of the squad needing money spent on it. 

 

As it turns out he had no intention of staying and Wilson early doors turned down the extension offer so yes big spends needed on one of the most expensive areas of the squad to recruit in.

 

Losing out on targets and getting later and later into the window has ultimately meant we have spent alot on both of them. Hopefully how they are on the pitch and impact to our season and seasons to come will pay it back.