It appears Stavely when she was at the club promised Isak a big pay rise but they were sailing close to the wind on finances and came close to a points deduction last year. His pay increase would have blown the budget so Stavely got the boot and Isak got the hump. Apparently, he has been unhappy for a while but Newcastle hoped they could find a way to keep him. I suspect his agent was instructed to put out feelers and here we are. I don’t know all of this as a fact but it is an interesting theory
We bought a striker. If isak has the hump as he saw his shot at the top and Newcastle denied it then thats his own fault. 6 year deal, he was very happy to hand them the reins for 120k a week. I dont see this as being very realistic. The saudis have cleary got the hump and tried to buy him off themselves to dope the club with money to replace him. He's told them no (apparently) Now Newcastle have ego tripped themselves to not getting ekiteke, have their main man on strike and howe looks a complete loser and liar. Not ideal situation for them just now.
Liverpool can spend £400M without breaching Financial Fair Play and PSR rules. Liverpool's spending this market: Florian Wirtz: £116M Jeremy Frimpong: £30M Milos Kerkez: £40M Hugo Ekitike: £79M (Instalments) Total Fee = £265M Sale: Trent Alexander-Arnold: £10M Caoimhin Kelleher: £18M Jarell Quansah: £35M Total = £63M If Liverpool sign Isak this summer for, say, £150m this summer, only £30m will hit the profit-and-loss account in 2025-26. That would be his fee amortised over five years, which is the maximum allowable under Premier League and UEFA PSR. Even if their spending eclipsed £400m, their amortisation would only rise by £80m in the present financial year. Amortisation impacts Liverpool’s bottom line, which is how the Premier League assesses PSR and UEFA test clubs based on their Football Earnings rule. Under the domestic system, Premier League clubs are allowed to lose £105m over a rolling three-year period. For UEFA, the threshold is set lower – up to a maximum of £75m, depending on whether or not the club is deemed in good financial health. Crucially, the bulk of the losses must be covered by an owner. It has been widely presumed by football finance experts and the media alike that ‘secure funding’ relates to equity funding, i.e., cash invested in the club in exchange for new shares. If this was the case, Liverpool’s maximum allowed PSR loss for the current three-year cycle would be £15m, not £105m, as FSG have not issued any shares in that time. However, TBR Football has now been told that the Premier League’s definition of ‘secure funding’ is actually much wider and includes revolving credit facilities among other sources. A revolving credit facility is essentially a club’s overdraft. For Liverpool, this is significant as it means the £350m revolving credit facility that was due to expire at the end of July this year before it was renewed in September 2024 has unlocked the full PSR allowance. ℹTBR Football And, they've just been on SkySports saying that were actually doing this on last years revenue (23/24) when we had no CL money, because these signings won't be accounted for until next summer, when last season's astronomical revenue kicks in (if that makes sense). And likes of Hogan and others have seen last Spring's revenue, and even they're buzzing at how much it is. Is this really happening?
I'm not sure about that, but I am assuming that when we said we were paying off the remainder of Jota's contract, it means it disappears from PSR? So we get him off the wage bill, cynically speaking.
Might disappear for future years but it'll still be on there for this year as we've had to pay it out. I'm not sure about insurance either tbh but would assume we'll get something; maybe it just covered said wages and that would make what you said true for this year too
