Alexander Isak: Senior Newcastle stars 'disgusted' with striker as Liverpool turn to 'maverick'

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Why would Liverpool sign Alexander Isak when they've already got Darwin Nunez? And is there a way back for the Swede in a dressing room of 'disgusted' teammates?

Liverpool are fine with Darwin Nunez

Like everyone else I'm tired of all the hokey-kokey about Isak. It's been quite funny seeing a number of premature videos saying "Liverpool sign Isak" or "frightening LFC attack with Isak" while the Toon have been giving no indication the sale is going through.Surely I can't be the only one thinking the Reds just shouldn't bother? The Swede is a wonderful striker but Newcastle's team is built around him, while Liverpool have a range of attacking options with more goals now expected from midfield.

Young Ngumoha who played the other day showed promise and scored a good goal. There's already Ekitike trying to find his feet, Gakpo can play through the middle and Salah can occupy the right side.

And Nunez, for all the talk of his departure, is still there, which suggests Slot didn't want to get rid in case Isak doesn't sign. So they have the maverick option on the bench if they need him.

Breaking the transfer record to sign one player makes it all about him -whereas it seemed Slot was all about coaching players into a coherent team.

I know it will read like "never fancied him anyway" but I just thought I'd give a different view to a story.

Paul in Brussels

READ MORE: Liverpool 'pulling out' of Alexander Isak deal as report reveals 'bid' included 'no add-ons'

Senior Newcastle stars 'disgusted' with Isak

The arrogance of Andy H, Swansea's letter is hardly surprising from a Liverpool supporter, but it still warrants addressing.

I would not count on Liverpool getting Isak for 120 million GBP this summer, or even at all. NUFC hold plenty of cards. Isak has three years left on a contract paying 125k (possibly 150?)/week. Sitting him would be painful, but not more painful than paying him 300k. NUFC have plenty of PSR room right now (the cheap bastards don't seem to want to use it, mind), so money from an Isak transfer is hardly critical this summer.

I'm happy to let him train alone until January, or even next summer. His value will be little less in January than it is now (60 million, lol?), though his form and fitness will certainly suffer. Which is fine by me: the less good he is for his next employer, the better for my club. Meanwhile, Liverpool gets a worse outcome -- a noble end in its own right -- and a lesser player, and Isak's dirtbag agent will have the payday he's been lusting for deferred. And maybe Real Madrid will come calling next summer; we'd be wise to sell him there, even for less money.

So Isak probably doesn't want to sit. If the transfer deadline passes without a deal, I would imagine he'd seek a way back into the fold, but I'm not sure one exists. Senior members of the squad are reportedly disgusted with him. I don't see that changing. But at this point, he's played all his cards, and there's nobody that gives a single shit how disgruntled he is. Hell, I'd watch video of him being disgruntled.

Chris C, Toon Army DC (Would also at this point watch video of Anfield burning to the ground. Is that too much? I'm not sure my spite is properly calibrated.)

'Desperate' Newcastle's 'stock had fallen'

When I was a young man and struggling with the ladies I asked a friend who was much more successful for advice, in reply he told me a short story:

The young bull and old bull were standing in a field. The young bull spotted a field full of cows nearby and said to the old bull, "let's run over there and ride some of those cows." The old bull shook his head, "no we'll walk over there and ride the lot of them."

To be honest I spent the next decade floundering with women and didn't have a clue what the story really meant until my late 20s when the penny dropped. When I finally relaxed and accepted myself for who I am and recognised my own self worth I could date as many women as I wanted to, but usually not the impossible ones.

What had I learnt and how does this relate to football.

Though out my younger years I would fall for (usually) a very pretty girl, convince myself we were meant to be together and pursue her without success. During this time my peripheral vision disappeared and I didn't want anyone bar the girl I had fallen for. There may have been other girls interested but I shall couldn't or didn't want to see them.

Which brings me onto Newcastle and Isak. Like the young bull of the story they are desperately clinging to Isak who is now objectively too good for their current level, because to lose him means they're not a big serious club anymore in their eyes.

But, and here's the rub, big clubs don't act like that. Like Winty's recent excellent article demonstrated: big clubs like City and Liverpool don't want players who don't want to play for them. They are secure and confident enough in their status to let players who want to go, go. Because they know that player won't give their all to the club and all players are replaceable.

So like the old bull, when a Trent, Diaz, Coutinho, Can, or an Alvarez etc at City want to leave they can leave. Note they will try to make them stay but when the writing is on the wall they say fine, go. These players are replaced by other, usually younger and hungrier players and the team moves on. They know selling one player does not diminish them in anyway.

Other players see how they operate and want to join these clubs because 1. They want to play for a genuine big club, 2. to improve as a player and 3. Know they won't be held as a prisoner if at any point they need to move on. Ie player welfare and their short careers come first.

Needless to say this is the opposite of how Newcastle are acting with Isak. Newcastle are a great club but not even the most deluded fan would think they are top of the footballing pyramid in England or Europe so some players might want to move on (usually your best players) That's ok. They can be replaced. But if you do what Newcastle have done a few things happen.

1. The player gets pissed off and rebels against your club.

2. Your club gets shrouded in negative publicity

3. Other players see this and are less likely to want to come to your club due to the negativity and also crucially because they don't want to end up in that players position someday being demonised in the media and as prisoners of their contract.

4. The player usually leaves anyway sooner or later but because of 3. and the fact you left it so long, are much harder to replace.

So in short Newcastle are starting to look like the young bull/late teen/early 20s Dave following around some girl out of his league like a lost puppy with the stench of desperation off them, not a good look. But all is not lost. You are a great club, losing Isak won't change that and the sooner you wake up and realise the future is waiting for you and it's golden. But the longer this goes on the more desperate you look and the more your stock falls.

Dave LFC

MORE ALEXANDER ISAK COVERAGE ON F365

👉 £150m Alexander Isak would *actually* be the ninth most expensive Premier League player ever

👉 Liverpool 'bottled it' with Isak as 'face saving' £110m bid makes Newcastle 'angry and baffled'

👉 Isak 'turns down' Man Utd 'enquiry' as Newcastle rebel 'remains optimistic' of Liverpool 'agreement'

No magic PSR wand

Just gotten round to reading the last couple of inboxes, but one thing jumped out. James of Kent seems to wantonly ignore that, while Newcastle are a big club in terms of local fans, they don't and have never had the world wide following or indeed the media love that Liverpool have had since the 80s.

It's simply not just a case of "sell more merch abroad, stupid".

This current Liverpool side and their significant revenue is built on that long-standing brand recognition. Revenue and awareness that has then allowed them to sign big players for big sums and bring success.

There are many clubs in a similar position to Newcastle, including Everton, Villa, Spurs - good following, widely considered a big club at least domestically but they didn't get in on that narrow window when the likes of United and Liverpool and even Arsenal did. Chelsea and City have leveraged their pre-financial-rules financially-doped success into more commercial activity, both previously having famously small followings, now both at the top end of following in the world. It's not lack of desire, it's lack of opportunity. Just look at how those let's call them "journeyman" fans flocked to "follow" City. And PSG.

Newcastle can't just buy their way in to PSR comfort on the back of instant success like those two. A big stadium will help Everton but it's a long game. But it can get them there if they combine it with financial sense, good recruitment and some success and visibility beyond these shores.

Just one final thought and example. Brighton were always hamstrung by their ground, and that was before it was sold in a brilliant move that ended up giving them a £9m debt, put them on the brink of going under, and left them homeless for over a decade. It took many years before they were finally given permission to build the new one, and another 5 years before it was completed in 2011. Now look at them. It's a hard graft, took prudence and investment in excellent scouting as well as the increased revenue, but they are a success story. Newcastle and Everton already start much higher up the ladder. It can happen. But not every club has a magic wand to wave.

Badwolf

PSR conspiracies

I thought I would address a couple of points made in the mailbox. One was 'worrying about women' and the other the ongoing Newcastle PSR 'big six' conspiracy theories.

Having moved to Canada some 40 years ago, one of the things I first noticed was the number of sports women and girls participated. My wife and all her friends all played a ton of sports in school and still do today - volleyball, softball, golf, pickleball, etc. Meanwhile girls play ice-hockey, 'soccer', rugby and many other sports in addition to the above. When my kids and the young ones today first learn to play 'soccer', it's girls and boys playing together. The girls tend to be much better, much more athletic, in general, and follow instructions better. The boys want to show off. At some point, sometime after 13 or so, the boys physical attributes start to come into play. But using Al, LFC's, logic, hadn't the boys benefitted up to this point by playing against the stronger, better girls? In any event, I think a bigger impact on girls (and women) ability to progress is that they tended not to watch and follow the sport to the same level as boys. So the things we picked up as boys, watching games and trying to emulate our heroes or seeing the tactics in play, starts to make a big difference. But as women's football, professional football, gets more publicity and awareness, hopefully girls will start to watch, follow and emulate their heroes.

On the PSR issue, a couple of key points. One: the EPL voted in the current PSR guidelines in the 2015/16 season - unanimously. All 20 clubs, including Newcastle voted it in. Two: In February 2025, all 20 Premier League clubs voted to retain the PSR for another season, with just one unnamed club reportedly opposing a proposed switch to the Squad Cost Ratio (SCR) system. SCR would cap spending on wages, transfers, and agent fees to a percentage of football income, with an "anchoring" rule to prevent excessive spending relative to the league's lowest earners. This is intended to reduce the financial gap between the Big Six and smaller clubs by linking spending to revenue rather than owner funding, offering more competitive balance. But the current 'big six' are still spending within that anchor cap.

At the same time, the SCR would still restrict Newcastle's spending by capping their squad costs (wages, transfers, agents) to about 85% of the club's football income, unlike PSR which limits losses. Since Newcastle's revenue is lower than the Big Six, their spending limit would remain proportionally smaller despite wealthy owners in the PIF. The SCR includes an "anchoring" rule linking spending caps to multiples of the lowest-earning club's income to prevent excessive spending, so Newcastle cannot spend freely based on owner wealth alone. While this helps slow the widening financial gap it does not enable Newcastle to catch up quickly or at least, more quickly than growing their revenues 'organically.'

But to see Newcastle fans get upset that they aren't allowed a financial cheat code alla City or Chelsea while ignoring or getting 'pissy' about the fact that teams like Liverpool have organically grown their revenues. So it is possible. FSG grew Liverpool's revenues approximately 280% since the FSG takeover and won their first major titles (CL and EPL) 8 and 9 years later. And they did this while being massively outspent by City (and Chelsea) during those early years.

I am sure that after the Ashley years, Newcastle fans were looking forward to enabling a financial cheat code to do much better, rather than wait as the hard graft to progress comes to fruition. The reality is more mundane in that the original team brought in to run things seemed to be doing a decent job along that path, but now the PIF is taking more control, things are going a bit sideways.

But in the end, Newcastle voted on PSR twice, and if all the non 'big six' (and the FA with its one vote) decided PSR and/or SCR were bad and only benefitted the 'big six', they could vote it out. But you know what, a lot of it makes sense in spending getting out of control. And clubs like Brighton, Bournemouth, Brentford, etc, have been doing quite well, within PSR.

Paul McDevitt

The Viking Clogger

The Viking Clogger had 2 touches and no goals in 13 minutes plus extra time. What a waste of money. Is Ollie Watkins still available? And the Spanish Pulis has clearly lost the plot. Zero goals from corners and a loss to Spurs. Arsenal will be lucky to finish 17th. Give up now, Arsenal fans.

Dave AFC (although seriously thinking of switching to whoever wins the PL this year)

Arsenal fan 'concerned' by Frank's Tottenham

Would love to be proven wrong but feel we might see a bit of unnecessary headloss after this friendly with Spurs.

To save anyone not melting down right now a bit of time, the game can be summarised as: Not very good, Spurs slightly edged first half generally, Sarr scored a nice goal that gets pulled back for a foul on MLS every time in PL (no issue with that Raya pass or positioning, would maybe like MLS to not go into every dribble with such confidence, but 3 players were covering anything but the long range shot). Second half not much of anything. In general, Arsenal still seem short of ideas for breaking tight defences, especially from left.

It's hard to feel particularly strong about a pre-season game, but I'd like to see from it us put more effort into a creative force from the left, not as a replacement to Martinelli (who is definitely perceived worse than he is playing at the moment) but a strong alternative. If he ends up replacing him, fine, but right now I don't think Trossard is really offering much competition and I'd really like to see him moved on (really hope that injury doesn't prevent that). This game hopefully emphasised this need early enough and clearly enough for Arsenal to act. Eze is the man for me.

I think you can learn more about Frank's Tottenham from the game honestly - he'll get them back into top 6 much quicker than anyone expects if they play like that, just the co-ordination and flexibility you saw is levels above anything Ange managed last season. Concerning tbqh.

Tom, Leyton

'Miserable, silly old goat'

Imagine being so thick-headed, so miserable that you actively choose to root against your women's national team because of the positive media coverage they get after winning yet another major trophy.

"I didn't want England to win the other night; nothing against the players or the game, but just because I knew how insufferable the next week or so would be." Why even bother supporting the team, Lewis Busby Way?

I don't think I have ever read a sillier or more misguided sentence in the history of this mailbox. What a miserable, silly old goat you must be, go outside and touch some grass already.

HumboldtBlue

Al - nice try. Dead wrong.

Can only speak for U.S. girls/women... coached and reffed both girls and boys here since forever, often simultaneous teams, and can attest that, even as I had a couple of excellent girls play 'up' in my boys team, once the girls turned 12, 13, they became quite literally non-starters. The physicality of the men's game hits them like a Chloe Kelly penalty, even at such an early developmental age. Some boys can reach full adult height at 13 or 14, so if you have a 6'1 boy playing against a 5'2 girl it's pretty pointless.

And then this happens: they join a terrific girls team and for a year or so make everyone else look stupid. Then, like 99% of all players, they level out. If the question is Were they better off playing in the boys' team at the time, even for a short period, then the answer is yes. If the question is Did it make them a better player over an extended period of time, the answer is no.

The physicality isn't there for girls, and I mean that it isn't in their nature (not generally, just in football); it isn't even there for the women's teams I referee. If they foul someone immediately they apologise and help them up. I gave out precisely one red card in years of doing women's games, and even that wasn't a straight red (first for kicking the ball away, second immediately after for telling me I was a piece of shit).

So if your hypothetical is, let's say we put Lucy Bronze in the Premier League for a lark... she would get a) skinned, b) physically bullied, c) verbally abused and d) out of breath after an hour. The differences between the top men and the top women are unfathomable, and the mens' game is only getting faster, the coaching better, the players more sophisticated. That's not to say the women's game hasn't improved immeasurably over the past 20 years, but rather it's a hundred metre race where the women are at the start line and the men at 90 metres.

Marcus Davidson