Alexander Isak wants to become a member of Liverpool from Newcastle United, but there has not been any offer from the Merseysiders yet and the magpies insist that their wild player is not for sale
Alexander Isak's attempts to leave Newcastle United for Liverpool took a somewhat bizarre turn on Thursday when the former club of the player, Real Sociedad, confirmed that he only trains in the Basque Country.
The Swedish International has asked Newcastle managers that he can explore a move by St James' Park is desperate to become a member of Liverpool. He has told Toon -bosses that he only wants a move to Anfield, but no offer from the Premier League champions has been accepted yet.
Isak did not join his teammates in Newcastle during their tour for the season, an injury that was initially cited by the club before the truth about his sharpness to leave was quickly made crystal clear. It comes when Liverpool has sold Luis Diaz for £ 65 million, a movement that will help finance their push to sign the Newcastle striker.
Isak's former club Sociedad confirmed on Thursday that he “worked with his trainers” in the Zubieta facility of the club, less than two weeks after he did not travel with Eddie Howe for their journey to Asia. The decision to train in his old club instead of his current, will further increase the speculation of the future of the player.
But for the time being, Liverpool has not been submitted to Newcastle, who is happy to be a deal worth £ 150 million. The Saudi owners of the club are supposed to dig their heels and extract the maximum value for last season's top scorer – which was rejected in the Carabao Cup victory of the club on Liverpool in Wembley.
But they are confronted with something of a balancing act like and when Liverpool comes to call. If Newcastle finally praises Isak from a move or simply refuses to listen to offers, there is potential for Isak and his representatives to go for what is described as the 'nuclear option' – who unilaterally terminates his contract with three years left.
Isak initially joined Newcastle in a £ 63 million deal on 26 August 2022 and agreed to a six -year deal. Since then he has not signed a new contract on Tyneside.
A European Court of Justice ruling in the former Chelsea midfielder Lassana Diarra last year means that players can now end their deals “without unnecessary fears”, according to the lawyer who led the Diarra case. The pronunciation seems to have given players a larger room for leeway to end a contract without just cause. The court ruled that some of the transfer rules of FIFA were contrary to European legislation because they limited the freedom of movements and were anti-competitive.
Jean-Louis Dupont, who led the challenge of Diarra and who also stood in the center of the historic Bosman case who granted a free agency of their contracts at the end of their contracts, is of the opinion that last year's pronunciation is raising the threat of important sanctions for players who choose to end their deals.
Dupont, generally instead of specifically about the case of Isak, said the PA press office: “In its Diarra judgment, the court ruled that players have the right to end without just a cause and that it is for the former employer to establish the existence and quantum of compensation, knowing that losing the opportunity to the player to the player is.
“According to the court, such a termination cannot entail disciplinary sanctions (when it is carried out between seasons). FIFA has, imperfect, its rules have changed its rules to adhere to the court's ruling. But it means that players have the right to end without unnecessary fears.”
Asked if he thought that players would now be free from the threat of sporting sanctions, such as a ban on ending their deals, Dupont added: “Yes. If not, the right to end, as granted by the court, would just be theoretically. But apparently FIFA still resisted this point.”
After the ECJ ruling, FIFA opened a global dialogue on the transfer rules and gave changed interim rules last year. The World Players' Union FIFPRO immediately pushed back on the amendments and said that they “have given no legal certainty” to players.
In May, FIFPRO issued guidelines for players that after the ruling the transfer costs or transfer value of a player can no longer be used in the calculation of a compensation from the club to which the player was contracted, and advised that the compensation paid must be limited to the residual value of the contract, with a possible further reduction or increase of the increase in the increase in the increase in the increase in the increase in the increase in the increase in the law. “.
A suspicion that the new club of a player had caused the termination of the contract was removed in the changed rules of FIFA in December. Now the old club of a player has to prove that the new club has to break the player in a contract.