NobbySol 426 Posted August 20 Share Posted August 20 49 minutes ago, Toonpack said: There is no "full blown legal action" option, everything is stipulated in his playing contract, he turns up for work as he is directed by the club or else we can fine him 2 weeks wages every time he doesn't. Ultimately we could sack him and retain his player registration until his contract ends, he hasn't got a leg to stand on. I mean to say from the club's side. If he downs tools and refuses to play for 3 seasons, surely it can't just be about fining him two weeks wages every week. That's perhaps just shy of £50m. If you sign a player for £200m and he refuses to play instantly but is on £150k a week - you're never getting the value of purchase back from fining them. I don't know the legalities but football is a different "ball" game and the value of the player, although subjective (noting the player doesn't choose that), can that come into play when taking a player to court? It shouldn't get there but you never know.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 15614 Posted August 20 Share Posted August 20 12 minutes ago, Kid Dynamite said: This might have already been said, but the wording of the NUFC statement that no one promised him "he could leave the club" is key for me, and pretty much confirms that "broken promise" to Isak was that we would give him a new contract last season. I suspect Isak has announced to the club 2 weeks before the end of the season he wants to leave and won't be signing a new deal. Hence Mitchell getting his marching orders a week later. I would guess that "promise" would be Mandy during her the end of the game cuddles probably saying something like "we'll get you a raise" and officially she was in no position to make any such promise, she was a minority shareholder. In truth Mitchell was quite right to knock it back for 12 months, give we were in PSR purgatory and the fucker (Isak) was one third of the way into a deal that had by all accounts tripled his cash when he was bought. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex 42163 Posted August 20 Share Posted August 20 58 minutes ago, Daftarse said: NUFC should propose a one season loan swap with Ramos... or summat like that! Just get rid of the cnut I think something like that might happen. But can you sign players on loan outside the transfer window? Because I think the deadline needs to pass before Isak would agree to it. The statement he made suggests he still thinks Liverpool is a goer this window. I think he’s massively deluded but it only makes the vaguest of sense in that context 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobElliott 2390 Posted August 20 Share Posted August 20 (edited) I'd say the last time the Arabs were as insulted was when Ashley and Owl Heed were in dubai talking about a takeover and then getting pissed up during the middle of Ramadan 😀 Edited August 20 by RobElliott 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 15614 Posted August 20 Share Posted August 20 4 minutes ago, Rayvin said: Sky discussed this and concluded that the issue is we can't offer him the amount he wants - maybe we had enough of a conversation for that to be clear. So we say here's the max we can do but we'll add in a release clause for next summer. Bottom line for me, whatever we could offer would have been a very significant raise, you're probably talking £100k/week minimum - we could pay him over £50k/week more at no cost due to his re-amortisised contract. It's just pure greed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 15614 Posted August 20 Share Posted August 20 12 minutes ago, NobbySol said: I mean to say from the club's side. If he downs tools and refuses to play for 3 seasons, surely it can't just be about fining him two weeks wages every week. That's perhaps just shy of £50m. If you sign a player for £200m and he refuses to play instantly but is on £150k a week - you're never getting the value of purchase back from fining them. I don't know the legalities but football is a different "ball" game and the value of the player, although subjective (noting the player doesn't choose that), can that come into play when taking a player to court? It shouldn't get there but you never know.... I believe Borson's article (Not the cheese gazzette PL) stated we could in extreme circumstance sue for impairment of his value. 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig 12390 Posted August 20 Share Posted August 20 19 minutes ago, Rayvin said: Sky discussed this and concluded that the issue is we can't offer him the amount he wants - maybe we had enough of a conversation for that to be clear. Yeah Sky were suggesting he wants £300K a week and that we'd be only able to afford 2/3 of that. Maybe that's true, may be it's not. Beggars belief that £200K a week is not enough for a 25 year old doing the job of his dreams. It's not about the money though, apparently. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Dynamite 9342 Posted August 20 Share Posted August 20 We seem to have painted ourselves into a corner now. I don't disagree with it, but I'm not sure what the way out of this is now, unless someone slaps down £150m and we find 2 new strikers in the next 9 days. If he returns to the squad under sufferance the fans are going to crucify him all season, and I can't see Isak being willing to give blood, sweat and tears for his teammates. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvin 8367 Posted August 20 Share Posted August 20 1 minute ago, Craig said: Yeah Sky were suggesting he wants £300K a week and that we'd be only able to afford 2/3 of that. Maybe that's true, may be it's not. Beggars belief that £200K a week is not enough for a 25 year old doing the job of his dreams. It's not about the money though, apparently. Aye - as you say, worth noting that there's no particular reason that Sky should have the inside track on this so who knows what the reality is. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig 12390 Posted August 20 Share Posted August 20 14 minutes ago, Alex said: The statement he made suggests he still thinks Liverpool is a goer this window. I think he’s massively deluded but it only makes the vaguest of sense in that context Yeah I think he's operating under the impression that Liverpool WILL be in for him. I reckon they've stepped back from it and probably even more so on account of his behaviour. He's in fully blinkered mode at the moment and can't see he's come out of this badly. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvin 8367 Posted August 20 Share Posted August 20 1 minute ago, Kid Dynamite said: We seem to have painted ourselves into a corner now. I don't disagree with it, but I'm not sure what the way out of this is now, unless someone slaps down £150m and we find 2 new strikers in the next 9 days. If he returns to the squad under sufferance the fans are going to crucify him all season, and I can't see Isak being willing to give blood, sweat and tears for his teammates. The club seems to think the situation is recoverable - I think he would need to commit himself again via a new contract and the sacking of his agent though. The one thing I do think is pertinent is that so far he could claim this entire feud has been between him and the executive, not the team or the fans. If he sticks to that line, he might just about get away with it should the club try to rehabilitate him - especially when the new CEO/DOF start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 39291 Posted August 20 Share Posted August 20 16 minutes ago, Alex said: I think something like that might happen. But can you sign players on loan outside the transfer window? Because I think the deadline needs to pass before Isak would agree to it. The statement he made suggests he still thinks Liverpool is a goer this window. I think he’s massively deluded but it only makes the vaguest of sense in that context Nah, once the window closes then Isak's only realistic way out is to Saudi as their window closes later than ours. The problem though is that because our window is shut we couldn't even bring in a replacement from Saudi. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dazzler 16216 Posted August 20 Share Posted August 20 1 minute ago, Craig said: Yeah I think he's operating under the impression that Liverpool WILL be in for him. I reckon they've stepped back from it and probably even more so on account of his behaviour. He's in fully blinkered mode at the moment and can't see he's come out of this badly. I think we'll know for certain after Monday. I reckon Liverpool will want to temper the atmosphere during the match, so even if they do intend on making another move they aren't going to do it until our game is out of the way. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 15614 Posted August 20 Share Posted August 20 1 minute ago, Rayvin said: The club seems to think the situation is recoverable - I think he would need to commit himself again via a new contract and the sacking of his agent though. The one thing I do think is pertinent is that so far he could claim this entire feud has been between him and the executive, not the team or the fans. If he sticks to that line, he might just about get away with it should the club try to rehabilitate him - especially when the new CEO/DOF start. Possibly swallowable but extremely tenuous, given the executives he could have had an issue with were gone before he started acting the twat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvin 8367 Posted August 20 Share Posted August 20 2 minutes ago, Toonpack said: Possibly swallowable but extremely tenuous, given the executives he could have had an issue with were gone before he started acting the twat. Agreed It would be complete bullshit but it is about the only spin I can think of that might stick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig 12390 Posted August 20 Share Posted August 20 I'll go back to what I said to a dipper last night after the club issued their response and mentioned conditions of sale. There's three. 1. Submit a formal transfer request. 2. NUFC secure what they deem to be adequate replacements for both Isak AND Callum Wilson. 3. A prospective buyer makes a bid that meets the valuation NUFC find acceptable. All 3 have to have for a sale to take place. Isak is solely in control of point 1; NUFC are in some control of point 2; Liverpool FC (or another suitor) are in control of point 3. Point 2 is the most complex - the other two are simple, but neither party seems willing to satisfy them. How on earth is this NUFC's issue? 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wykikitoon 28572 Posted August 20 Share Posted August 20 If he puts in a transfer request, where does that leave the club? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvin 8367 Posted August 20 Share Posted August 20 Just now, wykikitoon said: If he puts in a transfer request, where does that leave the club? About £15m better off. Beyond that I'm not sure it really changes our underlying position Which I suppose means that there's really no incentive for him to do it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dazzler 16216 Posted August 20 Share Posted August 20 4 minutes ago, Rayvin said: About £15m better off. Beyond that I'm not sure it really changes our underlying position Which I suppose means that there's really no incentive for him to do it. I think we'd probably knock the £15m off the asking price and tout him for £135m - We'd probably manage to shift him in that instance too, and it might encourage a bit of a bidding war - that Liverpool won't want. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig 12390 Posted August 20 Share Posted August 20 3 minutes ago, Rayvin said: About £15m better off. Beyond that I'm not sure it really changes our underlying position Which I suppose means that there's really no incentive for him to do it. Anecdotally it doesn't, but it doesn't devalue the step in the process. If he's that desperate to leave, why not just do it? The ONLY reason not to is because it's not financially beneficial to him or his agent. Tough shit. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig 12390 Posted August 20 Share Posted August 20 (edited) Just now, Dazzler said: I think we'd probably knock the £15m off the asking price and tout him for £135m - We'd probably manage to shift him in that instance too, and it might encourage a bit of a bidding war - that Liverpool won't want. This. Although as this progresses, I think it's less about what Liverpool won't want and more about what Isak won't want. Edited August 20 by Craig 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvin 8367 Posted August 20 Share Posted August 20 1 minute ago, Craig said: Anecdotally it doesn't, but it doesn't devalue the step in the process. If he's that desperate to leave, why not just do it? The ONLY reason not to is because it's not financially beneficial to him or his agent. Tough shit. I agree with your post about the three things that need to happen tbh, all I'm really saying is that whether he hands it in or not, doesn't mean 2 and 3 happen - so I can see from his point of view why that represents a risk. But yes, it's all down to money in the end. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Kelly 1839 Posted August 20 Share Posted August 20 11 minutes ago, Craig said: I'll go back to what I said to a dipper last night after the club issued their response and mentioned conditions of sale. There's three. 1. Submit a formal transfer request. 2. NUFC secure what they deem to be adequate replacements for both Isak AND Callum Wilson. 3. A prospective buyer makes a bid that meets the valuation NUFC find acceptable. All 3 have to have for a sale to take place. Isak is solely in control of point 1; NUFC are in some control of point 2; Liverpool FC (or another suitor) are in control of point 3. Point 2 is the most complex - the other two are simple, but neither party seems willing to satisfy them. How on earth is this NUFC's issue? I don't think all 3 have to be in place any more. If someone comes in with £150m I think we will accept it. His value is never going to increase now because a) His contract is going to run down further and b) He doesn't want to be here so the chances of his performance improving, in the unlikely scenario he plays any more, are nil. So what do we do? Keep a depreciating asset for the next 3 years who we never get any use from. Or take the maximum value we can get now? I think there is a fair chance we end up without any replacement either way so we may as well have the money. From a sporting point of view the only real impact it will have is on the buying club because, in the short term, we're probably fucked either way. I would say I'm not convinced anyone will come up with that offer though. I think it's likely that Liverpool try again with the same or maybe a slightly improved offer in an attempt to take advantage of us. The statement we've issued makes it pretty clear that isn't acceptable though. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 39291 Posted August 20 Share Posted August 20 2 minutes ago, David Kelly said: I don't think all 3 have to be in place any more. If someone comes in with £150m I think we will accept it. His value is never going to increase now because a) His contract is going to run down further and b) He doesn't want to be here so the chances of his performance improving, in the unlikely scenario he plays any more, are nil. So what do we do? Keep a depreciating asset for the next 3 years who we never get any use from. Or take the maximum value we can get now? I think there is a fair chance we end up without any replacement either way so we may as well have the money. From a sporting point of view the only real impact it will have is on the buying club because, in the short term, we're probably fucked either way. I would say I'm not convinced anyone will come up with that offer though. I think it's likely that Liverpool try again with the same or maybe a slightly improved offer in an attempt to take advantage of us. The statement we've issued makes it pretty clear that isn't acceptable though. We can’t let him go without at least one replacement. Even then, if it’s Wissa then he’s off to AFCON which again leaves us with no strikers. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 5305 Posted August 20 Share Posted August 20 37 minutes ago, Craig said: Yeah Sky were suggesting he wants £300K a week and that we'd be only able to afford 2/3 of that. Maybe that's true, may be it's not. Beggars belief that £200K a week is not enough for a 25 year old doing the job of his dreams. It's not about the money though, apparently. Footballers' wages are about ego/status/cock size not spendability. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now