Love to see these types of stories with genuine insight rather than the usual transfer gossip and churn

From market rate to intermediaries, seven truths about the transfer market Very few teams have the spending power and influence to keep up with the super-clubs, but there are plenty of ways teams like Genoa can keep pace. Here are seven such truths about the transfer window.

Things you should know about transfers and recruitment… from somebody who does this for a living…

www.espn.com/soccer/story...

From market rate to intermediaries, seven truths about the transfer market Very few teams have the spending power and influence to keep up with the super-clubs, but there are plenty of ways teams like Genoa can keep pace. Here are seven such truths about the transfer window.

Things you should know about transfers and recruitment… from somebody who does this for a living…

www.espn.com/soccer/story...

Whatever the source is, it’s not the RTSP.

Yes, but if he doesn't sign a new deal with a release clause there are risks for him:
- he won't get a pay rise
- he might end up being frozen out, which means his appeal to potential clubs might diminish
- he could get injured

That’s what some sports lawyers argue. Others say the opposite. It may take a test case. But would seem obvious that an FA that wants to be part of FIFA has to abide by FIFA laws

The little-known FIFA rule that gives Isak all the leverage over Newcastle You've probably seen coverage of the Alexander Isak transfer saga, but you are probably far less familiar with a little-known FIFA rule called Article 17. It could be the key to unlocking Isak's futur...

Wrote about how FIFA's Art 17 helps explain Isak's trying to force a move so aggressively. Next June, he can simply walk out, likely for less than half than what NUFC want. What's more, they won't see the money for 18 to 24 months.
www.espn.com/soccer/story...

Very good point. Which may explain why a lot of those guys got extensions. That said, long contracts means residual amortisation still very high

Maybe. But…
1. If you’re a football club, the only legal recourse is via FIFA and CAS
2. PIF owns a bunch of clubs in Saudi that might actually benefit from this. Not sure they’d prioritise NUFC over those teams

Not saying he's definitely invoking Art 17 next June. All I'm saying he has leverage thanks to Art 17. If he didn't he'd be mad (or a moron) to take the stance he had.

I'm not sure they can stop it. But it doesn't need to be a move to LFC to provide the leverage Isak has.

3. Plus, he'll be a year older. And there's a fair chance he won't have the same kind of season he had last year.

So AFAIK, LFC haven't confirmed they made an official offer.
But it would likely be significantly less because:
1. The criteria for comp isn't based on offers received
2. It's based mostly on residual amortization and years/wages remaining. A year from now that's around 40m in Isak's case.

Well, if that happens (which I doubt it will), clubs will save on transfer fees..

And, BTW, I'm not a social media account. I'm a journalist who actually talks to people who work in football, at FIFA and in sports law. Doesn't mean I'm right - or they're right - but don't be a child and talk about "social media accounts".

Hindsight is always 20/20 so it's easy to say they should have given him a new deal in 2024 after he had such a good season. If you recall, the CEO was unwell, the new DoF, Mitchell, didn't get along with Howe, a lot of stuff went down. And the rules were only changed in January.

Right. And judges have weighed on this matter. And it's pretty clear.

Thing is, already very few players are in this position, with 3 (de facto 4) years on the same contract.

Yikes! Have a good night and sorry to have kept you on this...

In its current form, not really. Because it has to be invoked at the end of the season and vast majority of players sign after July 1 in practice it only applies to guys with 4 years on the same deal (3 if they're over 28). Not many fit that bill.
Isak is an anomaly.

As for compensation, there are guidelines. And risk works both ways. What's not in doubt is that the players remaining contract and residual book value are two key considerations. In Isak's case, in a year's time, that will be around £40m total.

They're an interim measure because the court found the previous laws restricted player movement. If they change, they'll get less restrictive, not more.
Legal costs at the DRC and CAS aren't particularly significant when you're talking a 5m transfer, let alone one this large.

Not sure it will. Very few players meet the criteria.

of players who reach the end of Year 4 on their contracts without renewing is tiny. (Other than some youngsters, I doubt it's more than 10 in the PL)
6. Like I wrote, reality is that this ends with either a move to LFC or, more likely, a new contract with a friendly release clause.

..will take a hit. That's why they'll have to figure out a transitional period in terms of Financial Stability Rules etc.
5. I don't think this as huge as you imagine. In practice, because vast majority of players sign contracts after July 1 you need 4 seasons on same deal to do it. And the number

..18 to 24 months is pretty huge, even if the fee is close to 100m (which it likely won't be since next June he'll have only two years left (amortization/wages).
4. Bosman was supposed to destroy the transfer market too, remember? Obviously when a club's accounting is based on amortization etc you..

Maybe. But...
1. Does Newcastle want to take that risk?
2. The Diarra judgement pretty much says the comp can't be punitive. And already FIFA are being sued bc these rules are seen as too restrictive towards players, which suggests they won't be punitive.
3. The fact that you don't pay anything for

I think you're missing the point. It's not like Liverpool are the only club in the world. If he says "sell me or I'll invoke Article 17 as soon as I can next June" and then signs for, say, Real Madrid or Bayern, how can NUFC possibly argue it was induced?

Seems that way. Or maybe he just wants his bonuses in case he signs a new deal or doesn't get his move

I don't think you're looking at the latest version of the rules, which is this one (the one I linked to in the article)
digitalhub.fifa.com/m/696d877ea3...