Alexander Isak will forever be reminded of taking the 'nuclear option' to cause a relocation of Newcastle, Ian Ladyman tells the last episode of whistleblowers.
The Daily Mail Football Editor was accompanied by Merseyside reporter Lewis Steele to debate about the rights and mistakes of Isak 'decision to effectively strike to go to Liverpool through a move.
After he refused to become a member of the Newcastle team for their pre -season tour through Asia, Liverpool saw an range of £ 110 million throw back for the Swedish attacker.
The Reds announced that they would not offer again without 'encouraging' the Magpies, who pushed the camp of Isak to announce that the attacker is not going to once again represent Newcastle.
It is still to be seen whether the decision of Isak has softened the Newcastle's position, whereby the club still demands £ 150 million to sell their star stiker.
You can listen to the latest episode of whistleblower by clicking on the player below or here
“Football fans will list everything in a way that suits them,” Ladyman argued.
'The fans of Newcastle will frame it as the behavior of a traitor; Fans of Liverpool will say that it is a player who is desperately looking for a new challenge.
'I have always had the feeling that if Isak wanted this movement, he would have to press the nuclear button.
'He has now printed it in a great way – how it shakes, I don't know. I imagine that he will end in Liverpool.
'Wherever Isak goes, whatever happens in Liverpool and further – this will be part of his story, his estate.
'Once you have done something like that, you effectively refuse to play for your club, you never shake it off. That tag is with you forever. '
Ian referred to a similar transfer debacle from the 1990s to claim that Isak might be able to 'regret' his uprising.
He said: 'Listeners of a certain age can remember the pierre of Hooijdonk -Saga in Nottingham Forest in the 1990s.
'At that time I covered the forest for the local newspaper. Forest was promoted in the Premier League, but Van Hooijdonk was still on strike. He wanted to move.
'I still speak with Pierre occasionally; He is now around my age. He told me he regrets that he was going on strike.
“He still thinks that his grievances with the board were valid, but the fact that he took that nuclear option to put in his work … He regrets that now.”
Steele jumped to the defense of Isak and stated that the situation only emerged because Newcastle was 'in denial' about the player's desire to leave.
It is said that Isak announced Newcastle last summer that he wanted to be sold in this transfer window and repeated that wish to control Eddie Howe on the last day of the season.
“Newcastle had a year to prepare for this,” said Steele.
'What we understand, Isak told Newcastle last summer that he might only do another season.
'We have seen this situation before, with players such as Jack Grealish and Alexis Mcallister. They had unwritten agreements that they can leave the following year.
'So it's not as if Isak just threw this to Newcastle two weeks ago. They live a bit in denial, they knew he wanted.
“They should have prepared their options well in advance, instead of climbing around now.”
To listen to the full ISAK debate and why Liverpool might need more a quality defender than the Swedish dynamo of Newcastle, now look for whistleblowers, wherever you get your podcasts.