Some of the stuff around the Isak potential move to us looks a bit off - not that any of us are close to it and really know - but to my mind, I put it down the the business of football, and not any particular lack on the part of the player.
I don’t see him as abandoning his teammates of letting them down or whatever. He is an ambitious, top level striker, who wants to achieve all that he can. Clearly he feels there is a better option for him than Newcastle, and there has been plenty of reporting on a new deal not being offered as expected, due to their PSR issues.
There is a pecking order in football. Like it or not, but that’s how it is. And if a club higher up the food chain likes one of your players, it usually ends with a move. Newcastle are a big club and they can do exactly that to many other teams. But there are teams above them. We had years of it watching some of our big stars depart. It is unpleasant, so I understand the fan reaction.
But after the denial - anger - bargaining - depression stages are navigated, you have to accept it. And accepting it means you take the dough, reinvest, and improve that way, because if you keep building it up successfully fewer and fewer clubs can touch your players.
This is from the other day but I found something in the piece and wondered if it may play a part in a transfer such as Isak potentially moving to us. @Kopstar if you are reading.
"A ruling by the European Court of Justice last year in a case involving former Chelsea midfielder Lassana Diarra may also be in the minds of all parties.
The court found aspects of FIFA’s transfer rules contrary to EU law, and appeared to remove or at least reduce the deterrents to players wishing to unilaterally terminate their contracts without just cause.
World players’ union FIFPRO believes the ruling means any compensation owed to a player’s former club in the case of the player terminating the contract without just cause would not be based on any transfer value or on transfer fees paid, but instead on the residual value of their contract."
If player transfers start to play out like this, it will be huge. They can leave, and they only have to compensate the club for the remainder of their contract? In the case of Isak the fee at this stage would be less than £30M.
Wages would presumably skyrocket further, and the amount of movement will increase too.
Maybe the ramifications of the Diarra ruling haven’t really been tested, because clubs don’t want to deal with the harsher dog-eat-dog world it will create in football?
Yeah, I posted a similar article on this point a few days ago.
Basically there remains a lot of uncertainty. Not about the player’s ability to unilaterally terminate at this point in their contract but about the compensation payable.
What’s self evidently true, however, is that the compensation cannot be more than the player’s transfer value (as determined by independent assessment if necessary) but the process isn’t efficient.
It could easily leave Isak in limbo without a club between transfer windows.
However, the very possibility of such action ought to provide downward pressure on his valuation in the current discussions.
If he can unilaterally cancel his contract, surely he is then free to sign with a new party. Any compensation owed then becomes something to be determined at a later date? Or can the club entitled to compensation block his registration pending agreement/payment of compensation?
Makes Chelseas’ 7 and 8 year contracts look more savvy by the day. Surely clubs like ours should be moving to something like 5 + 2 +1 style option contracts - possibly even triggerable by a player as well as club if certain targets are met - as a minimum so that some value is protected?
Who decides the transfer value and how do they arrive at their decision though?
Example: How does an independent assessment calculate the transfer value of Steven Gerrard to Liverpool? Or how does the value of someone like John Terry’s value to Chelsea be calculated
This is how I was thinking. Doesn’t it potentially stop clubs playing hardball with their own players who want out.Does it give players like Isak more power if they decide an interested club has offered their club a reasonable amount, ie Liverpool have offered a record British fee(120mp),accept it or I’ll leave for 3 times my yearly salary.
Kopstar can talk in more detail, but this rule is very much in flux and the response of FIFA to the Diarra ruling is legally untested. That means any party relying on their understanding of it to get the outcome they want would be rolling the dice. But when you compare the outcomes available, you’d think that newcastle are best positioned to gamble - they have the best outcome from losing and so least to lose be being belligerent. Isak could find himself in legal limbo unable to register for anyone and likely financially liable to newcastle whether he won or lost while potentially having gone for a period of not earning while the case was being resolved.
This is almost as much fun as that rumour which emerged on RedCafe claiming that someone overheard a conversation between Mo’s entourage in a hotel lobby about him leaving Anfield.
