Romano reveals the truth behind Chelsea’s Isak pursuit

Fabrizio Romano has shot down Alexander Isak ‘s links to Chelsea. The Swedish sharpshooter enjoyed a spectacular goalscoring season for Newcastle last term, which naturally attracted the attention of bigger sides. Heavily linked with Arsenal previously, Isak has more recently become the subject of supposed interest from Chelsea.

Article continues under the video The player himself has repeatedly insisted that he is very happy at Newcastle and the Magpies have shown no willingness to cash in on the 24-year-old despite their need to fill a gap with regard to the Premier League’s Profit and Sustainability Rules by June 30.

It has been claimed that Chelsea could launch a major offensive for Isak this summer, potentially breaking their own club record and the British transfer record to bring in the 25- goal striker. However, according to Fabrizio Romano, that will not be happening this window.

Romano on Isak

Speaking on his YouTube channel, Romano emphatically dismissed suggestions that Chelsea could break the bank on Isak, having just ended their pursuit of much more affordable players such as Michael Olise and Nico Williams due to concerns about their price.

“What I’m told is that Chelsea are 100 per cent of the situation of Alexander Isak. He is considered absolutely too expensive. Newcastle would ask for crazy money to sell Isak, he has a long-term contract at the club.”

“They are also thinking internally at the moment to offer him a new deal. So at the moment, for Isak, the idea is absolutely to continue at Newcastle. Eddie Howe and the owners want for him to stay at the club and continue, so at the moment, there is no movement.”

“[There is] interest from many clubs, but in terms of concrete bids, nothing at all for Alexander Isak, who is expected to stay at Newcastle. And also, we know how Chelsea said, for example, ‘no’ to the possibility to trigger the clause of Nico Williams – too expensive – same to Michael Olise, the package for Olise – salary and clause – was considered too expensive.”