Below is a summary of the full article. Click here for the full version or go back to LFC Live.net

Alexander Isak of Newcastle United, the club he wants to leave(Image: Getty Images)

Alexander Isak's attempts to leave Newcastle United for Liverpool took a somewhat bizarre turn on Thursday as the player's former club, Real Sociedad, confirmed he is training alone in the Basque country.

The Sweden international has asked Newcastle executives that he be allowed to explore a move away from St James’ Park, is desperate to join Liverpool.

It comes as Liverpool have sold Luis Diaz for £65m, a move which will help finance their push to sign the Newcastle striker.



READ MORE:Top 5 most expensive footballers in history as Chelsea flop Joao Felix joins listREAD MORE:Fresh Liverpool transfer stance on Marc Guehi as Arne Slot eyes cut-price deal

Isak's former club Sociedad confirmed on Thursday he was “working with his trainers” at the club’s Zubieta facility, less than two weeks after he did not travel with Eddie Howe's side for their trip to Asia.

The decision to train at his old club rather than his current one will only further heighten speculation around the player's future.

But, as yet, no offer has been submitted by Liverpool to Newcastle, who are keen on a deal worth £150m.

The court found some of FIFA’s transfer rules were contrary to European law because they restricted freedom of movement and were anti-competitive.

Jean-Louis Dupont, who led Diarra’s challenge and who was also at the centre of the landmark Bosman case which granted players free agency at the end of their contracts, believes last year’s ruling lifts the threat of significant sanctions for players who choose to terminate their deals.

The former Chelsea midfielder Lassana Diarra(Image:.

)

Dupont, speaking in general rather than specifically about Isak’s case, told the PA news agency: “In its Diarra judgement, the court ruled that players have a right to termination without just cause and that it is for the ex-employer to establish the existence and the quantum of damages, knowing that losing the opportunity to transfer the player is NOT a damage.

“According to the court, such termination cannot entail disciplinary sanctions (when effected in between seasons).

The world players’ union FIFPRO immediately pushed back on the amendments, saying they did not “provide legal certainty” to players.

FIFPRO issued guidance to players in May stating that following the ruling, a player’s transfer fee or transfer value could no longer be used in the calculation of any compensation due to the club where the player had been contracted, and advised that the compensation paid should be “limited to the residual value of the contract, with a possible further reduction or increase on the basis of the national law”.

A presumption that a player’s new club had induced the termination of contract was removed in the amended rules issued by FIFA last December.
For more news relating to Chelsea, visit our sister site Chelsea Latest Live.