Yoane Wissa

[Kid Icarus]

18 minutes ago, Displayname said:

If we are selling Isak it's not because we were pushed around, it's because its whats best for the club.

 

The Saudis aren't going to let themselves be pushed around.

Can you cite any example of a club with title winning aspirations selling their best player to a direct rival and it being best for the selling club?

 

I can't think of a single example.

 

 

Edited August 3, 2025 by Kid Icarus

[Kid Icarus]

3 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

Liverpool aren’t our rivals, nor are they likely to be any time soon

Bollocks.

[nufc4eva]

Selling Isak would be 100m profit wouldn't it as only 2 years left on amortisation if 5 years so worth 24m on books, plus any sell on clause he had.

 

And we would need to use that over next 3 years due to how profit is added to books for PSR, that's what 3 60-70m players we could sign and still be ok for PSR for next few years with our current PSR headroom?

Quote

 

 

[IndonesianToon]

Just now, Kid Icarus said:

Can you cite any example of a club with title winning aspirations selling to a direct rival and it being best for the selling club?

 

I can't think of a single example.

Andy cole come to minds. 

Long time ago though

[ExiledGeordie]

1 minute ago, Kid Icarus said:

Can you cite any example of a club with title winning aspirations selling to a direct rival and it being best for the selling club?

 

I can't think of a single example.

I agree with the sentiment and completely disagree with Isak’s behaviour in this saga but he’s 26 this year, realistically we’re not going to be winning the title anytime soon in large parts due to PSR. Footballers have short careers, they aren’t looking at what might happen in 3-4 yrs. 

[Kid Icarus]

1 minute ago, IndonesianToon said:

Andy cole come to minds. 

Long time ago though

Very debatable that doing that was best for the selling club. 

 

It says it all that the one of the most well known other examples of a club doing it at all is us.

[Displayname]

3 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said:

Can you cite any example of a club with title winning aspirations selling to a direct rival and it being best for the selling club?

 

I can't think of a single example.

The current PSR rules haven't existed for a long time so the history is kinda irrelevant.

[Coffee_Johnny]

16 minutes ago, Shadow Puppets said:

Selling Isak (who appears hell bent and desperate to join Liverpool and never play for us again) and replacing him (and Wilson) with a proven PL goalscorer and one of Europe’s most in demand young players would be a “shocking indictment”?

 

Come on man.

 

(Unless of course you’re only pissed off that’s it’s Liverpool specifically? I am too… but it appears to be the only club he is pushing for)

I find myself in a ‘he can push all he wants’ frame of mind today. Appreciate if we can improve even more by letting him go, then that is the right thing to do. But still can’t get past the reality of a flat no and assertive telling him what we expect from him feeling right. What ‘power’ does he really have? Is he really going to cut his nose off to spite his face? Have a shit season? Not really try? Can’t see it. Unless he is colossally stupid and self-defeating. 

[nufc4eva]

5 minutes ago, Unbelievable said:

I may be in the minority here, but I don’t really want us to go for Wissa unless we absolutely have to, which I would qualify as the Sesko deal falling through and/or a >150m bid coming in for Isak. To me Wissa is an insurance policy, a last resort kind of deal. Plan A should be to keep Isak for another year AND sign his successor this summer to bed him in for said year, if at all possible while also strengthening CM and CB. That may be mortgaging our future on an Isak sale in June, but it’s the sort of gamble that if it pays off sets us up for a really good season and another strong position for next summer.

I think we are downplaying what Wissa could offer in our team next season, hes quality.

[Unbelievable]

2 minutes ago, nufc4eva said:

Selling Isak would be 100m profit wouldn't it as only 2 years left on amortisation if 5 years so worth 24m on books, plus any sell on clause he had.

 

And we would need to use that over next 3 years due to how profit is added to books for PSR, that's what 3 60-70m players we could sign and still be ok for PSR for next few years with our current PSR headroom?

 

FFP rules have changed. Now also based as a percentage of revenue, so it’s not that simple.

[Kid Icarus]

Just now, ExiledGeordie said:

I agree with the sentiment and completely disagree with Isak’s behaviour in this saga but he’s 26 this year, realistically we’re not going to be winning the title anytime soon in large parts due to PSR. Footballers have short careers, they aren’t looking at what might happen in 3-4 yrs. 

All the more reason to call his bluff on choosing between letting him run down his contract until he's 28 nearly 29 to go to Liverpool, or go abroad next year.

[Troll]

9 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

Liverpool aren’t our rivals, nor are they likely to be any time soon

 

Did you miss us beating them in a final earlier this year with Isak making the difference?

[Kimbo]

10 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

Liverpool aren’t our rivals, nor are they likely to be any time soon

We finished above them 2 seasons ago and there’s no guarantee their success last season will continue. Ekitike and Wirtz might not be great, and we’ll have to see how Slot does with his own team. They’re getting a lot of hype but there’s questions IMO.

 

If we got our business done this summer then we’d be a genuine threat to the top 4.

 

 

Edited August 3, 2025 by Kimbo

[Displayname]

1 minute ago, Troll said:

 

Did you miss us beating them in a final earlier this year with Isak making the difference?

So Palace are direct rivals to City?

 

 

Edited August 3, 2025 by Displayname

[Kid Icarus]

1 minute ago, Displayname said:

The current PSR rules haven't existed for a long time so the history is kinda irrelevant.

Not really. The point I'm getting at is that there are examples of clubs doing it and no examples I can think of where it's benefitted the selling club.

[54]

3 minutes ago, OpenC said:

 

Can't believe people don't see this like

Its just opinions isn't it? People could see what KI is saying and just not believe it. Personally I don't, if we get a Sesko and Wissa, and Isak goes for the fee we demand (£150m) I wouldn't say thats weak or "a shocking indictment of the club" at all, in fact it'd say it's the exact opposite.

 

We'd have stuck firm on our valuation for a player, despite all the carry on in the press, the attempted manipulation of Liverpool and Isaks agent, and then gone and sought out one of the hottest prospects in the continent, convinced him about the project and what we're building at the club, while also getting a proven Premier League player that scored nearly 20 goals last season. That shows a fair amount of strength in my opinion. It doesn't mean I'm right and I can understand why someone could see it the other way.

 

The whole "We can't be shown to be pushed around, and it'll be the same going forward" is just conjecture and there isn't anything really to back it up.

[nufc4eva]

5 minutes ago, Unbelievable said:

FFP rules have changed. Now also based as a percentage of revenue, so it’s not that simple.

Ah squad cost rules and UEFA stuff, still gives us quite a bit to play with.

[TRon]

29 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said:

Any scenario in which we're selling Isak to Liverpool is a catastrophic situation like, sorry. I cannot stand this mentality that if we get Sesko and Wissa we've somehow succeeded or saved face. It's a shocking indictment on the club and PiF for me.

 

 

It is a catastrophic scenario, because not only would we be selling Isak, but we'd be making Liverpool virtually unstoppable. 

 

But that's how the league is set up, I don't really see it as an indictment of the club or PIF unless Eddie wants to force Isak to stay rather than get Sesko as a replacement. What the manager wants is a key element in this because I would imagine as a club we are taking his view into account. 

[OpenC]

4 minutes ago, 54 said:

Its just opinions isn't it? People could see what KI is saying and just not believe it. Personally I don't, if we get a Sesko and Wissa, and Isak goes for the fee we demand (£150m) I wouldn't say thats weak or "a shocking indictment of the club" at all, in fact it'd say it's the exact opposite.

 

We'd have stuck firm on our valuation for a player, despite all the carry on in the press, the attempted manipulation of Liverpool and Isaks agent, and then gone and sought out one of the hottest prospects in the continent, convinced him about the project and what we're building at the club, while also getting a proven Premier League player that scored nearly 20 goals last season. That shows a fair amount of strength in my opinion. It doesn't mean I'm right and I can understand why someone could see it the other way.

 

The whole "We can't be shown to be pushed around, and it'll be the same going forward" is just conjecture and there isn't anything really to back it up.

 

Well, it is and it isn't. I just don't see top clubs harried into selling their top players in the prime of their life and at the top of their game to their direct rivals in the bread and butter leagues they all play in, and I see that as part of the reason they're top clubs rather than sellers and feeders

 

 

Edited August 3, 2025 by OpenC

[Coffee_Johnny]

5 minutes ago, Displayname said:

So Palace are direct rivals to City?

 

 

 

They technically are when they play them. 

[Yorkie]

20 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

Liverpool aren’t our rivals, nor are they likely to be any time soon

 

As far as the Premier League is concerned, I would agree. I'd fancy us against just about anyone in a one-off cup game, but in terms of sustaining Champions League qualifications - and certainly title challenges - this summer has demonstrated that we don't have a prayer as long as PSR exists in it's current format.

 

Liverpool specifically has the double advantage of being incredibly well run on top of all the benefits aided to them by PSR. 

 

I hate the idea of losing our best players to Liverpool, I really do, but personally I don't think it's the scandal or demonstration of being bullied that KI presents, providing we get an astronomical fee. £150million is a ludicrous sum of money and a giant return on our initial investment; collecting that from any team is stomachable for me. Notwithstanding the sadness at seeing one of our alleged greats treat us with such disrespect.

[Displayname]

1 minute ago, Coffee_Johnny said:

They technically are when they play them. 

Well then technically people are benefitting from selling to direct rivals all the time.

[Displayname]

7 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said:

Not really. The point I'm getting at is that there are examples of clubs doing it and no examples I can think of where it's benefitted the selling club.

I dont know which examples you are thinking of. But I know it didnt get the selling club out of the PSR jam we currently are in. So again, not comparable.

[J7]

19 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

Liverpool aren’t our rivals, nor are they likely to be any time soon

Disagree with this. We played them in a cup final and are in the same competitions. Had Isak been playing for them and not us, we’d have likely lost.

[Coffee_Johnny]

3 minutes ago, Displayname said:

Well then technically people are benefitting from selling to direct rivals all the time.

Does this come as a revelation to you? Or do you think it supports that teams in the same league who play each other at least twice a season are not in competition with each other, are not ‘rivals’; regardless of how realistic their aspirations of success in such competitions are. 

 

 

Edited August 3, 2025 by Coffee_Johnny