comment by Jenius99 (U4918)
posted 3 hours, 16 minutes ago
I don't understand where Liverpool fans get the idea that there was any agreement, verbal or written, to let Isak go?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
a lot of mental gymnastics for things in their favour, if the situation was the other way around they would be saying the opposite
comment by Passion Power - Make 1984 fiction again(U8398) (U8398)
posted 7 minutes ago
why don't liverpool just bid the £150M and be done with if they really want him?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because we'll end up getting him for less than that.
comment by Jenius99 (U4918)
posted 3 hours, 51 minutes ago
I don't understand where Liverpool fans get the idea that there was any agreement, verbal or written, to let Isak go?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Where do you get your football news and rumours? You live under a rock or what?
hes just copying what gyokeres said he'd do
comment by Peter O'Hanraha-hanrahan (U1217)
posted 39 minutes ago
comment by Passion Power - Make 1984 fiction again(U8398) (U8398)
posted 7 minutes ago
why don't liverpool just bid the £150M and be done with if they really want him?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because we'll end up getting him for less than that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's what Liverpool wants, they wanted Isak to make a fuss to get him cheaper than what Newcastle want him for, so saying that Liverpool have done nothing wrong is slightly untrue, if not you would just re-bid again
like what arsenal told gyokeres to do?
comment by Taki Minamino (U20650)
posted 2 minutes ago
like what arsenal told gyokeres to do?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Gyokeres actually had a contract dispute because unlike Isak he had an agreement with Sporting on how he could leave the club and his agent was incentivised on the percentages he would receive of a transfer fee.
yeah isak had an agreement aswell
comment by ubad9jagooner .Ramsey : don't get the hype ! (U7978)
posted 5 hours, 35 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by ubad9jagooner .Ramsey : don't get the hype ! (U7978)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by No Løve - When Klopp leaves... (U1282)
posted 1 hour, 22 minutes ago
comment by ubad9jagooner .Ramsey : don't get the hype ! (U7978)
posted 9 hours, 58 minutes ago
comment by No Løve - When Klopp leaves... (U1282)
posted 12 minutes ago
This is a legal question and we simply don't have the info or details to make a conclusion one way or the other. What's in the media is nowhere near reliable for that purpose.
Isak claims that Newcastle promised him he could leave this summer and if stuff like that and other rumours is true then he could have a solid case if it comes to a legal dispute.
I don't think Newcastle will want to blow this into a legal matter by sacking him or sme similar action. They could win the dispute but they could also lose and it would be monumental if they lost. Why take the risk when you could pocket £120m instead?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can’t argue a case on a “ promise” , can you? If an agreement is not in writing, contain all the terms and signed by the parties, it shall no legal validity.
Sacking can’t be an option as that released him from his contractual obligations.
Why can’t the club stoping paying him while he is behaving this unprofessionally.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You're statement is correct, but academic. In practice it's never that simple. There's many details we don't know and no case is ever a slam dunk. For instance an agreement may be written but a promise to tear up that agreement at a future date, a promise which the aggrieved party has relied on and invested into also carries the force of law.
Just because you signed an agreement doesn't mean you can go around promising this and that and then reneging and saying you had a written agreement.
The manner in which the promise was made, the conduct of the parties and the intention of the parties to fundamentally alter the agreement, as deduced from the evidence of their demeanour is a very strong case.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, but that later promise to tear up the initial contract must also be in writing. That is why highly paid footballer have lawyers and agents advising them.
If on penning a six year contract Isak insisted on a clause that if a champions league team bid more than £100million, Newcastle must accept the offer, we won’t have this impasse
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Legally speaking the statement wasn't fully correct.
Verbal agreements have the same legal standing and bind in the same way as a written and signed contract. So a verbal agreement from both parties to tear up the contract would be binding and valid (unless the contract specifically stated it could only be ended in writing). The issue with verbal agreements is proving that they happened. You either need witnesses/ a recording to corroborate that they happened or some written confirmation from both sides (like an email acknowledging the discussion took place) that the agreement was made.
Of course, like a written contract, a verbal agreement also requires consideration from both sides. In this case, even if Newcastle promised to sell Isak this summer that doesn't make a contract unless Isak offered something in return to Newcastle. If it was just "I want to leave next summer" and Newcastle said "Ok we will let you leave next summer" then that isn't a binding contract. You could argue it is an unfair thing to do by Newcastle (if it actually happened) but that doesn't mean it is binding.
Fundamentally, to go back to the op, unless we see the terms of Isak's contract, it is impossible to say exactly how far he can go with it, or exactly what Newcastle can do in return. For example, it could be (although probably unlikely) that he is able to refuse to play but as long as he makes himself available for all his other duties like training and other stuff the players have to do then he isn't in breach and they have to continue paying him.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It is difficult to contemplate a scenario where multiple millions pound contracts such as that for top tier football clubs can hinge on verbal agreements.
One of the biggest layout people in the UK make in their life time is buying a property. A contact for the sale of land must be in writing and can only be changed by another written contract specifying the change agreed by both parties.
The money and stake in football goes up several notches than land and I cannot imagine an adjudicator finding for a party based on a verbal agreement.
Like JJ99 posted, reform is needed and hopefully UEFA/FIFA are looking at this.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If it was established that there was a verbal contract then it wouldn't matter that it was football. Verbal contracts are legally binding in the UK.
comment by No Løve - When Klopp leaves... (U1282)
posted 21 minutes ago
comment by Jenius99 (U4918)
posted 3 hours, 51 minutes ago
I don't understand where Liverpool fans get the idea that there was any agreement, verbal or written, to let Isak go?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Where do you get your football news and rumours? You live under a rock or what?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Obviously, you get taken in by twitter bullchit.
Isak does not have any agreement verbal or otherwise to allow him to leave. Amanda Staveley promised him a new contract that they reneged on. That was Newcastle's prerogative and again there was no agreement verbal or otherwise that it would trigger an exit.
comment by Taki Minamino (U20650)
posted 2 minutes ago
yeah isak had an agreement aswell
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nope. Prove it. Source it.
Yeah my understanding was that Isaks agreement was with Stavely so not really sure where that lands when the individual who made the promise is gone
But even then I thought that was a promise for a new contract, not to be able to leave
And it was her choice. Not that she had to because of an understanding with Isak that they had to renegotiate if Isak had a good season, or they qualified for the CL. So she could have withdrawn it even if she had stayed. Sure it makes Isak feel undervalued but that doesn't give him any legal recourse.
comment by Taki Minamino (U20650)
posted 8 minutes ago
hes just copying what gyokeres said he'd do
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Gyokores was told he would leave on a certain fee and apparently according to the agent it was written down, but it has seemed to have set a precedent especially amongst his fellow country man, I think Isak's agent got him to make up the story
comment by T-Joey Joe Joe shabadooo (U11806)
posted 13 minutes ago
But even then I thought that was a promise for a new contract, not to be able to leave
----------------------------------------------------------------------
well he said this in March.
https://x.com/SkySportsPL/status/1902672989696754135
I'm not buying it, he wasn't promised he could leave, even if he said that he wanted to leave it's still up to the club to accept offers that find reasonable.
You can keep your money. You can't just pick and choose which rumours to believe according to your own preference. Whether he was promised a pay hike, new contract or whatever, Newcastle still reneged on a promise
Arsenal fans only believe the parts of the story that they like and want to be true. Cherry pickers.
Do you see Isak taking legal action? Gyokeres did. He sent an official letter with a view to court action because he actually had an agreement he could leave.
Sign in if you want to comment
The Isak situation.
Page 3 of 3
posted on 15/8/25
comment by Jenius99 (U4918)
posted 3 hours, 16 minutes ago
I don't understand where Liverpool fans get the idea that there was any agreement, verbal or written, to let Isak go?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
a lot of mental gymnastics for things in their favour, if the situation was the other way around they would be saying the opposite
posted on 15/8/25
comment by Passion Power - Make 1984 fiction again(U8398) (U8398)
posted 7 minutes ago
why don't liverpool just bid the £150M and be done with if they really want him?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because we'll end up getting him for less than that.
posted on 15/8/25
comment by Jenius99 (U4918)
posted 3 hours, 51 minutes ago
I don't understand where Liverpool fans get the idea that there was any agreement, verbal or written, to let Isak go?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Where do you get your football news and rumours? You live under a rock or what?
posted on 15/8/25
hes just copying what gyokeres said he'd do
posted on 15/8/25
comment by Peter O'Hanraha-hanrahan (U1217)
posted 39 minutes ago
comment by Passion Power - Make 1984 fiction again(U8398) (U8398)
posted 7 minutes ago
why don't liverpool just bid the £150M and be done with if they really want him?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because we'll end up getting him for less than that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's what Liverpool wants, they wanted Isak to make a fuss to get him cheaper than what Newcastle want him for, so saying that Liverpool have done nothing wrong is slightly untrue, if not you would just re-bid again
posted on 15/8/25
like what arsenal told gyokeres to do?
posted on 15/8/25
comment by Taki Minamino (U20650)
posted 2 minutes ago
like what arsenal told gyokeres to do?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Gyokeres actually had a contract dispute because unlike Isak he had an agreement with Sporting on how he could leave the club and his agent was incentivised on the percentages he would receive of a transfer fee.
posted on 15/8/25
yeah isak had an agreement aswell
posted on 15/8/25
comment by ubad9jagooner .Ramsey : don't get the hype ! (U7978)
posted 5 hours, 35 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by ubad9jagooner .Ramsey : don't get the hype ! (U7978)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by No Løve - When Klopp leaves... (U1282)
posted 1 hour, 22 minutes ago
comment by ubad9jagooner .Ramsey : don't get the hype ! (U7978)
posted 9 hours, 58 minutes ago
comment by No Løve - When Klopp leaves... (U1282)
posted 12 minutes ago
This is a legal question and we simply don't have the info or details to make a conclusion one way or the other. What's in the media is nowhere near reliable for that purpose.
Isak claims that Newcastle promised him he could leave this summer and if stuff like that and other rumours is true then he could have a solid case if it comes to a legal dispute.
I don't think Newcastle will want to blow this into a legal matter by sacking him or sme similar action. They could win the dispute but they could also lose and it would be monumental if they lost. Why take the risk when you could pocket £120m instead?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can’t argue a case on a “ promise” , can you? If an agreement is not in writing, contain all the terms and signed by the parties, it shall no legal validity.
Sacking can’t be an option as that released him from his contractual obligations.
Why can’t the club stoping paying him while he is behaving this unprofessionally.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You're statement is correct, but academic. In practice it's never that simple. There's many details we don't know and no case is ever a slam dunk. For instance an agreement may be written but a promise to tear up that agreement at a future date, a promise which the aggrieved party has relied on and invested into also carries the force of law.
Just because you signed an agreement doesn't mean you can go around promising this and that and then reneging and saying you had a written agreement.
The manner in which the promise was made, the conduct of the parties and the intention of the parties to fundamentally alter the agreement, as deduced from the evidence of their demeanour is a very strong case.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, but that later promise to tear up the initial contract must also be in writing. That is why highly paid footballer have lawyers and agents advising them.
If on penning a six year contract Isak insisted on a clause that if a champions league team bid more than £100million, Newcastle must accept the offer, we won’t have this impasse
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Legally speaking the statement wasn't fully correct.
Verbal agreements have the same legal standing and bind in the same way as a written and signed contract. So a verbal agreement from both parties to tear up the contract would be binding and valid (unless the contract specifically stated it could only be ended in writing). The issue with verbal agreements is proving that they happened. You either need witnesses/ a recording to corroborate that they happened or some written confirmation from both sides (like an email acknowledging the discussion took place) that the agreement was made.
Of course, like a written contract, a verbal agreement also requires consideration from both sides. In this case, even if Newcastle promised to sell Isak this summer that doesn't make a contract unless Isak offered something in return to Newcastle. If it was just "I want to leave next summer" and Newcastle said "Ok we will let you leave next summer" then that isn't a binding contract. You could argue it is an unfair thing to do by Newcastle (if it actually happened) but that doesn't mean it is binding.
Fundamentally, to go back to the op, unless we see the terms of Isak's contract, it is impossible to say exactly how far he can go with it, or exactly what Newcastle can do in return. For example, it could be (although probably unlikely) that he is able to refuse to play but as long as he makes himself available for all his other duties like training and other stuff the players have to do then he isn't in breach and they have to continue paying him.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It is difficult to contemplate a scenario where multiple millions pound contracts such as that for top tier football clubs can hinge on verbal agreements.
One of the biggest layout people in the UK make in their life time is buying a property. A contact for the sale of land must be in writing and can only be changed by another written contract specifying the change agreed by both parties.
The money and stake in football goes up several notches than land and I cannot imagine an adjudicator finding for a party based on a verbal agreement.
Like JJ99 posted, reform is needed and hopefully UEFA/FIFA are looking at this.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If it was established that there was a verbal contract then it wouldn't matter that it was football. Verbal contracts are legally binding in the UK.
posted on 15/8/25
comment by No Løve - When Klopp leaves... (U1282)
posted 21 minutes ago
comment by Jenius99 (U4918)
posted 3 hours, 51 minutes ago
I don't understand where Liverpool fans get the idea that there was any agreement, verbal or written, to let Isak go?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Where do you get your football news and rumours? You live under a rock or what?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Obviously, you get taken in by twitter bullchit.
Isak does not have any agreement verbal or otherwise to allow him to leave. Amanda Staveley promised him a new contract that they reneged on. That was Newcastle's prerogative and again there was no agreement verbal or otherwise that it would trigger an exit.
posted on 15/8/25
comment by Taki Minamino (U20650)
posted 2 minutes ago
yeah isak had an agreement aswell
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nope. Prove it. Source it.
posted on 15/8/25
Yeah my understanding was that Isaks agreement was with Stavely so not really sure where that lands when the individual who made the promise is gone
posted on 15/8/25
But even then I thought that was a promise for a new contract, not to be able to leave
posted on 15/8/25
And it was her choice. Not that she had to because of an understanding with Isak that they had to renegotiate if Isak had a good season, or they qualified for the CL. So she could have withdrawn it even if she had stayed. Sure it makes Isak feel undervalued but that doesn't give him any legal recourse.
posted on 15/8/25
comment by Taki Minamino (U20650)
posted 8 minutes ago
hes just copying what gyokeres said he'd do
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Gyokores was told he would leave on a certain fee and apparently according to the agent it was written down, but it has seemed to have set a precedent especially amongst his fellow country man, I think Isak's agent got him to make up the story
posted on 15/8/25
comment by T-Joey Joe Joe shabadooo (U11806)
posted 13 minutes ago
But even then I thought that was a promise for a new contract, not to be able to leave
----------------------------------------------------------------------
well he said this in March.
https://x.com/SkySportsPL/status/1902672989696754135
I'm not buying it, he wasn't promised he could leave, even if he said that he wanted to leave it's still up to the club to accept offers that find reasonable.
posted on 15/8/25
You can keep your money. You can't just pick and choose which rumours to believe according to your own preference. Whether he was promised a pay hike, new contract or whatever, Newcastle still reneged on a promise
posted on 15/8/25
Arsenal fans only believe the parts of the story that they like and want to be true. Cherry pickers.
posted on 15/8/25
Do you see Isak taking legal action? Gyokeres did. He sent an official letter with a view to court action because he actually had an agreement he could leave.
Page 3 of 3