Heroes & Villains, the Aston Villa fanzine
Heroes & Villains => Heroes Discussion => Topic started by: Toronto Villa on September 01, 2025, 12:43:37 PM
-
Noise getting louder around Harvey Elliott now. Loan with an obligation to buy. Being reported by Townley, Ornstein. I’ll be very happy with this.
https://x.com/johntownley11/status/1962481050371641534?s=46
https://x.com/david_ornstein/status/1962479189233111279?s=46
-
Noise getting louder around Harvey Elliott now. Loan with an obligation to buy. Being reported by Townley, Ornstein. I’ll be very happy with this.
https://x.com/johntownley11/status/1962481050371641534?s=46
https://x.com/david_ornstein/status/1962479189233111279?s=46
I agree - defo Emery type of player.
-
Seems interesting and gives us attacking options in the team and, one way or another, on the bench, which we were crying out for yesterday.
-
Seems interesting and gives us attacking options in the team and, one way or another, on the bench, which we were crying out for yesterday.
We need to insert some kind of haircut clause though.
-
Seems interesting and gives us attacking options in the team and, one way or another, on the bench, which we were crying out for yesterday.
We need to insert some kind of haircut clause though.
Agreed.
-
I'd have expected him to end up at somewhere like Fulham or Palace. Why are people excited (help me feel less underwhelmed!)?
-
This is much more like it.
-
Seems interesting and gives us attacking options in the team and, one way or another, on the bench, which we were crying out for yesterday.
We need to insert some kind of haircut clause though.
That is frigging regionalist - what other hairstyle do you expect a bonafide Scouser to have. Would you done the same to Rudi Voeller back in the day?
-
I'd have expected him to end up at somewhere like Fulham or Palace. Why are people excited (help me feel less underwhelmed!)?
We have a great manager , this is our first proper bump he knows what he is doing
-
Yes.
-
I'd have expected him to end up at somewhere like Fulham or Palace. Why are people excited (help me feel less underwhelmed!)?
At the recent U21 Euros he was outstanding and deservedly player of the tournament.
-
Yes given our predictament, I am happy with this.
-
He's not a Scouser. Grew up in West London. So maybe he was just trying to fit in.
-
I fucking weep we've effectively swapped JJ for him.
-
I'd have expected him to end up at somewhere like Fulham or Palace. Why are people excited (help me feel less underwhelmed!)?
Maybe partly because of this from Wiki:
“On 28 June 2025, Elliott played in the 2025 UEFA European Under-21 Championship final, scoring England's opening goal against Germany in a 3–2 victory. Elliott was named Player of the Tournament, having scored five goals in the tournament.”
-
I like him and would be happy with this if it's a sensible deal.
-
Yea good signing if it comes off.
Maybe begs the question what happens to Malen over coming months.
-
He's not a Scouser. Grew up in West London. So maybe he was just trying to fit in.
Blimey sounds quite posh.
Fair enough. I retract - the haircut has to go if he leaves Liverpool
-
Hard working and with a bit of guile. Plus knows where the goal is. I like this signing a lot. Reminds me a bit of a younger McGinn.
-
I'd have expected him to end up at somewhere like Fulham or Palace. Why are people excited (help me feel less underwhelmed!)?
Maybe partly because of this from Wiki:
“On 28 June 2025, Elliott played in the 2025 UEFA European Under-21 Championship final, scoring England's opening goal against Germany in a 3–2 victory. Elliott was named Player of the Tournament, having scored five goals in the tournament.”
Well that is a bit reassuring. He's looked average when I've seen him play for Liverpool, but is young so maybe I'm being too miserable.
-
I'd have expected him to end up at somewhere like Fulham or Palace. Why are people excited (help me feel less underwhelmed!)?
Bad examples. Fulham and Palace generally buy very decent players.
-
Better than Sancho at least.
-
Decent move.
However, once more, TV has effectively called it off by going too soon.
-
Not a terrible signing. Fairly happy with this one, in fact.
-
He's not a Scouser. Grew up in West London. So maybe he was just trying to fit in.
Blimey sounds quite posh.
Anyone that has lived in West London is definitely middle class. Probably votes Tory as well.
-
Stop it.
-
Need this with Asensio going to Fenerbache.
-
Much more positive about this than Sancho.
-
World Cup year, might help with the the motivation factor for Elliott and Sancho
-
Another cast off
-
Another cast off
Do you think we should be buying Liverpool’s best players?
-
This would be a good signing. Can play a few positions. Holds a resale value if he does well for 2 or 3 years. No brainer.
-
Another cast off
Do you think we should be buying Liverpool’s best players?
We should bid for Isak
-
Another cast off
Do you think we should be buying Liverpool’s best players?
Yes.
Ask me another.
-
Another cast off
He isn’t though is he. He just can’t get into a Liverpool side that has better options.
-
If this comes off then it’s certainly a move in the right direction.
-
Palmer and Rogers were cast-offs. And Elliot can be more their level but it depends on where we play him.
-
Romano saying it's basically a done deal. Happy enough with this, expected Sancho to be the only outfield arrival today.
-
Romano saying it's basically a done deal. Happy enough with this, expected Sancho to be the only outfield arrival today.
Surprised as Toronto started the topic before he signed and we know his track record. Shame you beat him to it with the Sancho thread.
-
I started the Sancho one in the hope of jinxing it but you're right, should have left it to the expert. Sorry, everyone.
-
Romano saying it's basically a done deal. Happy enough with this, expected Sancho to be the only outfield arrival today.
Surprised as Toronto started the topic before he signed and we know his track record. Shame you beat him to it with the Sancho thread.
Superb track record.
-
I started the Sancho one in the hope of jinxing it but you're right, should have left it to the expert. Sorry, everyone.
I got the Joe Bryant deal scuppered. You're welcome
-
On the Beeb as well now that he is with us for a medical
-
Another cast off
Do you think we should be buying Liverpool’s best players?
Yes.
Ask me another.
Marco Bizot
-
I like this lad, shit hair cut aside. He is a gobby little twat bag as well, which I am a big fan of.
-
I like this lad, shit hair cut aside. He is a gobby little twat bag as well, which I am a big fan of.
I do get him mixed up with the gravelly voiced Gillette advert singer.
-
I like this lad, shit hair cut aside. He is a gobby little twat bag as well, which I am a big fan of.
we're missing a twat-bag in the middle - evident from Will Hughes having it easy last night
-
Another cast off
Seriously? This is the one bright spark in an otherwise underwhelming transfer window and you want to piss on our parade? Your comment could be tongue in cheek of course in which case I apologise in advance.
-
Another cast off
Yep, should have gone for Salah. Disgraceful from so-called Monchi.
-
He’s going going to be another little Lee Hendrie
Which is fine by me
-
There’s three Liverpool fans in my footie chat WhatsApp group. They all really rate him. He just needs to move on to get game time. This is a nice bit of business. If he was Spanish he’d be £50m
-
I mean just look at the horrible little bugger. Absolutely tremendous work! (https://x.com/natsiobhan_/status/1962483566752809106?t=j6nvcwzjvTLiXtmGHWGxWw&s=19)
-
I think this is a good signing. Happy about this
-
I mean just look at the horrible little bugger. Absolutely tremendous work! (https://x.com/natsiobhan_/status/1962483566752809106?t=j6nvcwzjvTLiXtmGHWGxWw&s=19)
we need some nastyness
-
I mean just look at the horrible little bugger. Absolutely tremendous work! (https://x.com/natsiobhan_/status/1962483566752809106?t=j6nvcwzjvTLiXtmGHWGxWw&s=19)
Proper old school Vickies too. None of this middle finger bollocks.
-
I mean just look at the horrible little bugger. Absolutely tremendous work! (https://x.com/natsiobhan_/status/1962483566752809106?t=j6nvcwzjvTLiXtmGHWGxWw&s=19)
Ha ha, my new favourite player.
-
Elliot will be a good signing. He was very much an impact sub at Liverpool, and often changed games in their favour. I rate him higher than both Ramsey and Asensio.
-
Yes, a good signing.
-
I like Elliott, reckon he'll score plenty in an Emery team.
-
I like Elliott, reckon he'll score plenty in an Emery team.
Right now, I’d be happy with just one.
-
I mean just look at the horrible little bugger. Absolutely tremendous work! (https://x.com/natsiobhan_/status/1962483566752809106?t=j6nvcwzjvTLiXtmGHWGxWw&s=19)
That's the new Newcastle striker as well isn't it?
He couldn't look more German if he was wearing Lederhosen.
-
I mean just look at the horrible little bugger. Absolutely tremendous work! (https://x.com/natsiobhan_/status/1962483566752809106?t=j6nvcwzjvTLiXtmGHWGxWw&s=19)
Ok, I’m convinced. Welcome to our new overlord of housery.
-
even got a pikey haircut - I'm on board.
-
Slow.
-
He looks like he should be overcharging for shoddy roofing works.
-
Better tactical fit anyway. Take last night, he could easily play where Malen was or where Buendia came on. He's lively and not afraid to take a shot. A better bet than Asensio I think. Not the most athletic of players but he/we can work on that.
-
Yeah this is a very good signing only 22 he's only gonna get better.
-
Yeah this is a very good signing only 22 he's only gonna get better.
bit of the Ray Houghtons about him
-
I mean just look at the horrible little bugger. Absolutely tremendous work! (https://x.com/natsiobhan_/status/1962483566752809106?t=j6nvcwzjvTLiXtmGHWGxWw&s=19)
That's the new Newcastle striker as well isn't it?
He couldn't look more German if he was wearing Lederhosen.
His legs are to thin
-
Yeah this is a very good signing only 22 he's only gonna get better.
bit of the Ray Houghtons about him
Bit of Birchy judging by his haircut.
-
My cousins a liverpool fan i asked his analysis. Said he is a gifted footballer with excellent technical play. But no pace at all (will fit in well here then)
Said sad to let him go and thinks emery will get best out of him
-
Yeah this is a very good signing only 22 he's only gonna get better.
He’s only on loan though
-
Yeah this is a very good signing only 22 he's only gonna get better.
He’s only on loan though
I think its obligation to buy so he is ours
-
Obligation to buy.
-
Yeah this is a very good signing only 22 he's only gonna get better.
He’s only on loan though
isnt there an obligation to buy ?
-
No pace? Great...how is his weaker foot?
-
Obligation to buy.
35M is an absolute steal. 22 years old, excellent already with bags of potential.
-
Not a terrible signing. Fairly happy with this one, in fact.
Not a terrible signing.
Is that where we are now ?
-
buy uy uy uy
-
My cousins a liverpool fan i asked his analysis. Said he is a gifted footballer with excellent technical play. But no pace at all (will fit in well here then)
Said sad to let him go and thinks emery will get best out of him
Emery isn't even getting the best out of Morgan Rogers right now, so the stock assumption he gets the best out of everyone isn't correct. Onana, Maatsen, Guessand, Malen. We need to start getting some value out of them now, not in 6 or 12 months, time for Emery to prove his reputation for getting the best out of players is still deserved.
-
Yeah this is a very good signing only 22 he's only gonna get better.
He’s only on loan though
I think its obligation to buy so he is ours
Ok fair enough
-
Elliot is apparently on £40k a week at Liverpool. Any idea how much we will be silly enough to pay him? Surely no more than £60k.
-
He'll be on way over £100k a week.
-
Kopite at work says he's a really talented player, but his dad is a bit of a gobby one. No real knowledge of this, but I think this is a really good signing.
-
Elliot is apparently on £40k a week at Liverpool. Any idea how much we will be silly enough to pay him? Surely no more than £60k.
He's on a £4m a year contract, a little more than £40,000 a week.
-
Elliott
Elliott
Harvey Elliott
He’s got shit hair but we don’t care
Harvey Elliott
Sorted.
-
I think he is on a fairly low wage (relative to PL football) at Liverpool. Structure of the deal probably allows us to take on a relatively low wage this season to help with the salary-cost-ratio in Europe and then he gets a big sign on fee and wage hike next season when we're obliged to buy him permanently
-
Elliot is apparently on £40k a week at Liverpool. Any idea how much we will be silly enough to pay him? Surely no more than £60k.
He's on a £4m a year contract, a little more than £40,000 a week.
£4m is £80 grand a week.
-
He's gonna be really, really good. Cracking signing, not a huge wage, and at 22 could be our long term no. 10. Will work great alongside Rogers.
-
Elliot is apparently on £40k a week at Liverpool. Any idea how much we will be silly enough to pay him? Surely no more than £60k.
He's on a £4m a year contract, a little more than £40,000 a week.
£4m is £80 grand a week.
Double what I said then, so more.
-
He's gonna be really, really good. Cracking signing, not a huge wage, and at 22 could be our long term no. 10. Will work great alongside Rogers.
i think mor McGinn long term signing
-
Elliot is apparently on £40k a week at Liverpool. Any idea how much we will be silly enough to pay him? Surely no more than £60k.
He's on a £4m a year contract, a little more than £40,000 a week.
£4m is £80 grand a week.
Double what I said then, so more.
Still good though compared to Malen
-
Looks a done deal to me. Liverpool have just spent the Elliot fee on Guehi
-
Hard working and with a bit of guile. Plus knows where the goal is. I like this signing a lot. Reminds me a bit of a younger McGinn.
Same here. I've been thinking all summer Elliott could be the long term replacement of McGinn, a player whose characteristics are near impossible to reproduce. Absolutely no problem us taking him on loan to test drive him before parting with big money.
-
Fucking Liverpool....Marc Guehi is a steal at £35M. We will pay for that as well if Elliot is any good.
-
Guehi only has a year left on his contract.
-
Fucking Liverpool....Marc Guehi is a steal at £35M. We will pay for that as well if Elliot is any good.
He'd normally cost more to be fair but only has a year left on his contract.
-
Guehi only has a year left on his contract.
They turned down 60m for him from Newcastle not that long ago.
I didn’t even know Monchi worked for Palace as well.
-
How many years did Guehi have on his contract?
-
How many years did Guehi have on his contract?
Out of contract next summer
-
Guehi only has a year left on his contract.
They turned down 60m for him from Newcastle not that long ago.
I didn’t even know Monchi worked for Palace as well.
That decision won them the FA Cup
-
Honestly this is type of profile player we should be looking at. The more im thinking about it the more i like this signing. U21 young and a lot to prove. Hopefully in the mould of palmer. This far more sensible than a expensive aging player like asensio
-
This hasn’t gone down well with Glasner. Reckons he had an agreement with parish he wouldn’t be sold without a replacement.
-
This hasn’t gone down well with Glasner. Reckons he had an agreement with parish he wouldn’t be sold without a replacement.
But they do. Jaydee canvot
-
Honestly this is type of profile player we should be looking at. The more im thinking about it the more i like this signing. U21 young and a lot to prove. Hopefully in the mould of palmer. This far more sensible than a expensive aging player like asensio
Agreed - good players on the fringe of the very biggest clubs. We can offer them much more football and the chance to make the most of their talents.
-
This hasn’t gone down well with Glasner. Reckons he had an agreement with parish he wouldn’t be sold without a replacement.
Hopefully manager gets poached soon and they can fuck off back to the abyss of South London
-
This hasn’t gone down well with Glasner. Reckons he had an agreement with parish he wouldn’t be sold without a replacement.
Hopefully manager gets poached soon and they can fuck off back to the abyss of South London
I’d love Glasner to go to United. Then we combine two curses into one.
-
There's a vacancy at Leverkusen...
-
Arsenal when legohead gets the boot.
-
Arsenal when legohead gets the boot.
I can't wait for this to happen - he's the aids of football managers
-
Happier with this than I think I usually would be, due to the absolute shit show the rest of the window has been.
-
Elliot is apparently on £40k a week at Liverpool. Any idea how much we will be silly enough to pay him? Surely no more than £60k.
He's on a £4m a year contract, a little more than £40,000 a week.
I haven't seen aynthing that suggests he's on £80k a week. Do you have a link?
-
he's on £40k p/w according to a few sites I checked.
-
If this one does go through I think it’s pretty exciting.
-
Would you take Ollie over Unai? He beats him every time.
-
Do we think elliots a upgrade on ramsey?
-
Another cast off
Liverpool didn’t want him to go, but he wanted more opportunities to play instead of being a bit part player
-
Another cast off
Liverpool didn’t want him to go, but he wanted more opportunities to play instead of being a bit part player
Which in itself is a sign of good character.
-
Do we think elliots a upgrade on ramsey?
On a par I would say.
-
Do we think elliots a upgrade on ramsey?
On a par I would say.
Yes I'd agree, which seems rather pointless, other than to satisfy the beancounters at UEFA
-
If he's as good as Ramsey, can, fingers-crossed, stay fit more regularly and has cost £5 million less, then that would have to be considered a good deal. Also, having an ex-Liverpool player in against Everton does at least partially counter the Grealish "bound to score" factor.
-
Do we think elliots a upgrade on ramsey?
He's done more in the last two years anyway.
-
Do we think elliots a upgrade on ramsey?
On a par I would say.
If his fitness record is better than ramseys then i am happy with that chris!
-
Just needs to get rid of that shite, chavvy haircut and it's a yes from me.
-
Yes, do we have any hairstylists on H&V that could advise him on the spaghetti junction residing on his bonce?
-
Can someone remind me what is his preferred position?
-
Can someone remind me what is his preferred position?
I don't know him that well.
-
Can someone remind me what is his preferred position?
I don't know him that well.
Lolz
-
Good potential and for his age he’s got some real experience. Happy with this one.
-
Can he help the curls or does he sit in the salon for a few hours being permed. My brother didn’t that in the 80’s, him and his mate.
-
Can someone remind me what is his preferred position?
I don't know him that well.
Lolz
I’d still like to know though 😁
-
I'd have expected him to end up at somewhere like Fulham or Palace. Why are people excited (help me feel less underwhelmed!)?
18th December 2019 Villa v Liverpool Carabao Cup QF. We won 5-0 but a 16-year old Elliott was the best player on the pitch that night. His close control and dribbling was a joy to watch. For me a very good signing and we have been crying out for a similar player so far this season.
-
I think he adds quite a lot to our attack. I’m not thrilled with the other two signings, will obviously give them a chance, but Elliott is a real talent and a great age profile too.
-
Can someone remind me what is his preferred position?
Wiki - so it must be true
Harvey Daniel James Elliott (born 4 April 2003) is an English professional footballer who plays as an attacking midfielder or right winger for Premier League club Liverpool.*
Having come up through Fulham's academy, Elliott made his first-team debut in September 2018, becoming the youngest player to play in the EFL Cup, aged 15 years and 174 days.
* there’s a note on the page saying he’s the subject of transfer negotiations as we read this!
-
Seems like a proper signing finally, good age and has excellent pedigree
Coming off the back off a very good U21 campaign with England too
-
Can someone remind me what is his preferred position?
I don't know him that well.
Lolz
I’d still like to know though 😁
According to a Dec. 2023 interview he did for LFC TV, it's Reverse Cowgirl.
-
Not yet confirmed though.
-
Can someone tell me what happens in this scenario if elliot has a serious injury and doesnt play for us do we still have to buy him?
Not that im advocating for this at all just so i know the process if this were to happen
-
Essentially he plays in the Salah role (which is why he doesn't get the game time) or just right of midfield. When they were being blitzed by PSG at their place he was playing Right Back (no wonder Emery wants him) for the last few mins he was on and got the goal in stoppage time.
-
Essentially he plays in the Salah role (which is why he doesn't get the game time) or just right of midfield. When they were being blitzed by PSG at their place he was playing Right Back (no wonder Emery wants him) for the last few mins he was on and got the goal in stoppage time.
Harvey, this is Cash, Cash this is Harvey, Cash please try and find him.
-
Essentially he plays in the Salah role (which is why he doesn't get the game time) or just right of midfield. When they were being blitzed by PSG at their place he was playing Right Back (no wonder Emery wants him) for the last few mins he was on and got the goal in stoppage time.
Harvey, this is Cash, Cash this is Harvey, Cash please try and find him.
Harvey can be quite difficult to see, to be fair.
-
Can someone remind me what is his preferred position?
I don't know him that well.
Lolz
I’d still like to know though 😁
According to a Dec. 2023 interview he did for LFC TV, it's Reverse Cowgirl.
Wow! That's mine too!
-
Can someone remind me what is his preferred position?
I don't know him that well.
Lolz
I’d still like to know though 😁
According to a Dec. 2023 interview he did for LFC TV, it's Reverse Cowgirl.
Wow! That's mine too!
I'm a big fan of African Reverser Cowgirl.
-
So did we actually get him or not?
-
We fucking better have.
-
I've just not seen anything confirming it. He is not on our list of 'ins' on any of the TDD summary's at the moment.
-
So did we actually get him or not?
Sky sports says sheets gone in for him nothing about sancho though
-
Damn, some of you are difficult to please. This is a transfer (fingers crossed it happened) that I think is difficult to pick holes with.
-
Elliot and Sancho are both on a big "deals yet to be announced" graphic along with the likes of Isak, Guehi, Jackson and Donnarumma.
-
Elliot and Sancho are both on a big "deals yet to be announced" graphic along with the likes of Isak, Guehi, Jackson and Donnarumma.
Im its just to drag this sky transfer programme out as long as possible
-
Some Elliott highlights while we wait for the deal to be confirmed. He’s very good.
-
That assist for Cavalho was disgusting!
-
The music's always so good in those videos.
-
The music's always so good in those videos.
Might put it as my first dance should I ever get married again.
-
Anyone else notice that in those highlights there are always 4 or 5 red shirts in the box waiting for his pass. He won’t find that at Villa
-
Why not?
-
To be fair this is make or break for him. He was no where near the England squad for next weeks internationals and if he’s serious about his England intentions he now has a chance to prove it
-
Make or break is a bit extreme. He’s definitely on the rise, it just happens Liverpool have bought an astonishing amount of attacking talent.
-
Talksport have it on their ticker that the deal is done and the fee at the end is only £25M. That would be superb if true or they have a typo and it’s £35M as previously reported.
-
Why not?
We don’t play in red😉
-
Why not?
We don’t play in red😉
I mean, we do!
-
Done. Welcome, Harvey. Be ace.
https://www.avfc.co.uk/news/2025/september/01/villa-announce-harvey-elliott-deal/
-
Dead pleased with this one.
-
I likey this one.
-
DONE DEAL: Villa sign Liverpool's Elliott
published at 22:01 British Summer Time
22:01 BST
Breaking
Aston Villa have signed Liverpool midfielder Harvey Elliott on loan - with an obligation to buy conditional on appearances.
-
Welcome Harvey.
-
This is a great signing, could be a masterstroke.
-
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GzydhmRWoAArO4b?format=jpg&name=small)
-
This has just about salvaged the window. The important thing is that Ollie, Morgan and others will see this and be pleased. The club needed a lift.
-
Welcome harvey! This is one i am looking forward to.
-
Great news. Rate him highly.
-
I note - conditional on appearances it becomes permanent so no gurantee. I wonder how many appearances he has to make
-
Welcome Harvey, this one is a really good deal.
-
Welcome Harvey, be ace & sort your barnet! UTV!
-
Yep. This is a good signing and it would have been a pretty depressing final day without it. Intrigued now for Everton.
-
Best position is a 10??
-
Another buy back clause to speculate over, every window 😂
-
Chertsey Boy,Chertsey Boy
Laced up boots and Villa ball
-
The kind of nasty bugger you need in a relegation fight.
-
I note - conditional on appearances it becomes permanent so no gurantee. I wonder how many appearances he has to make
10
https://x.com/j_tanswell/status/1962623057337434301?s=46
-
DONE DEAL: Villa sign Liverpool's Elliott
published at 22:01 British Summer Time
22:01 BST
Breaking
Aston Villa have signed Liverpool midfielder Harvey Elliott on loan - with an obligation to buy conditional on appearances.
Unai will have to play him If he wants him and not leave him on the bench for 8 mths .
good signing . welcome Harv . .
-
We’ve now got two players for each position. That arguably looks better.
-
Conditional on appearances means he has to get a haircut everyone likes.
-
Buy back clause is annoying, but the way of things now.
-
Buy back clause is annoying, but the way of things now.
We need him to be good, but not excellent. It’s so frustrating, but on deadline day and when desperate I suppose
-
If there is a clause you'd assume it will be say 50m as we'd be paying 35m, so he's going to have to have a blinding couple of years and they go backwards for it to be triggered.
-
I note - conditional on appearances it becomes permanent so no gurantee. I wonder how many appearances he has to make
10
https://x.com/j_tanswell/status/1962623057337434301?s=46
Thanks mate thats helpful
-
Pleased with this, he's a very promising young player.
-
Conditional on appearances means he has to get a haircut everyone likes.
I laughed at this probably more than I should.
-
If there is a clause you'd assume it will be say 50m as we'd be paying 35m, so he's going to have to have a blinding couple of years and they go backwards for it to be triggered.
Who knows how much it’ll be. I agree he’ll have to be bloody good though. Just wish we’d stop having to sign players with strings attached.
-
Well it will be more than we paid, and we insert them as well.
-
If there is a clause you'd assume it will be say 50m as we'd be paying 35m, so he's going to have to have a blinding couple of years and they go backwards for it to be triggered.
Who knows how much it’ll be. I agree he’ll have to be bloody good though. Just wish we’d stop having to sign players with strings attached.
That's just his haircut, mate.
-
Pleased with this one. I think he will do well
( in my professional footballing brain lol)
-
He is probably the one obvious upgrade for me of the windows as I think he is better than JJ. Actually excited by this and no shame that he can't dislodge Salah from the Kopites. Him wide right and cutting in on his left will give us fire power.
-
For me he takes over in midfield from SJM. Sancho down the left. Rogers in the middle. Tielemans and Kamara (when fit). Backed up by SJM, Onana, the lesser spotted Barkley (if ever fit).
-
You have to think if Elliott, Sancho, Rogers and Watkins can click as a front four, then it's going to get a LOT of media attention in a World Cup year. How many Premier League sides have been able to field an all-English forward line of that quality?
Hopefully the new boys can get up to speed quickly.
-
When I think of Elliot I think tram lines, broke ankle, being substituted if he started and coming on as sub if he didn't. He plays more like what Buendia should of been than McGinn but I'd have him over the likes of Bailey all day and hopefully he'll bring out the best in Rogers again.
-
For me he takes over in midfield from SJM. Sancho down the left. Rogers in the middle. Tielemans and Kamara (when fit). Backed up by SJM, Onana, the lesser spotted Barkley (if ever fit).
I bet your shit on Football Manager.
-
For me he takes over in midfield from SJM. Sancho down the left. Rogers in the middle. Tielemans and Kamara (when fit). Backed up by SJM, Onana, the lesser spotted Barkley (if ever fit).
I bet your shit on Football Manager.
:) He's still got a 40yr old Cherno Samba playing upfront.
-
For me he takes over in midfield from SJM. Sancho down the left. Rogers in the middle. Tielemans and Kamara (when fit). Backed up by SJM, Onana, the lesser spotted Barkley (if ever fit).
I bet your shit on Football Manager.
:) He's still got a 40yr old Cherno Samba playing upfront.
We could certainly use a Tonto Zola Moukokou in our team.
-
For me he takes over in midfield from SJM. Sancho down the left. Rogers in the middle. Tielemans and Kamara (when fit). Backed up by SJM, Onana, the lesser spotted Barkley (if ever fit).
I bet your shit on Football Manager.
:) He's still got a 40yr old Cherno Samba playing upfront.
I'm sure I have a 12" vinyl of Cherno Samba. Maybe BV can remind me who it's by? Airto & Flora Purim?
-
I imagine he will predominantly play on.the right won't he?
-
For me he takes over in midfield from SJM. Sancho down the left. Rogers in the middle. Tielemans and Kamara (when fit). Backed up by SJM, Onana, the lesser spotted Barkley (if ever fit).
I bet your shit on Football Manager.
Nah fucking ace. Like all the liars that play the game I’ve taken a non league team to multiple CL wins. And I even named myself Ruben Amorim just to make the game harder.
-
For me he takes over in midfield from SJM. Sancho down the left. Rogers in the middle. Tielemans and Kamara (when fit). Backed up by SJM, Onana, the lesser spotted Barkley (if ever fit).
I bet your shit on Football Manager.
:) He's still got a 40yr old Cherno Samba playing upfront.
That would be way too good. Instead Ross McCormack and Scott Hogan up top.
-
For me he takes over in midfield from SJM. Sancho down the left. Rogers in the middle. Tielemans and Kamara (when fit). Backed up by SJM, Onana, the lesser spotted Barkley (if ever fit).
I bet your shit on Football Manager.
Nah fucking ace. Like all the liars that play the game I’ve taken a non league team to multiple CL wins. And I even named myself Ruben Amorim just to make the game harder.
You've been called worse. Should have gone with Ruben Blades. Far cooler.
-
I feel this is like a James Milner signing and makes me feel warm and fuzzy.
-
A bright ending to a very tough transfer window. Really pleased with this one, I think he’ll improve us and offer some much needed dynamism and variation to our - so far - pretty stale looking attack. 35m for a u21s euros player of the tournament, on the last day of the transfer window is pretty decent value too.
-
This is a cracking compilation of his Liverpool goals. He’s scored quite a few for not being a starting option for them. Some real bangers in here. And it doesn’t even speak to his England U21 goals where he has 14 in 28.
-
So there is a buy back and sell on clause. 🤦♂️
-
So there is a buy back and sell on clause. 🤦♂️
If it in 2 seasons a club like Liverpool are buying him back then he will have done incredibly well for us. Just treat it then like they have paid us to loan him for a couple of seasons. You have to wheel and deal in our situation.
-
Very decent signing, and as others have said a bright spot on an otherwise depressing transfer window.
-
So there is a buy back and sell on clause. 🤦♂️
The problem is the buy back clause and what is the fee. Then if its not liverpool we pay them a percentage of our profit. Im curious to see what the figures are fir this.
If it in 2 seasons a club like Liverpool are buying him back then he will have done incredibly well for us. Just treat it then like they have paid us to loan him for a couple of seasons. You have to wheel and deal in our situation.
If the buy back is something like 70-80m ill be happy with that. Feels like if he does well he just ends up back there so we did all the developing and leaves us in a hole.
The one positive is we get at least two seasons out of him as he isnt a permanent until the sumemr so they can't activate it until at least summer of 2027.
-
He is a very good player, no doubt.
Many Liverpool supporters have posted that they they are sad to see him leave, in the same way that we spoke of JJ's departure.
Let's hope that Unai can do his magic.
-
Presumably the buy-back clause is the reason for the lower fee than they were looking for earlier in the window. I’d be surprised if they wanted him back for their squad, but there’s a risk that they might want him back to sell-on for a higher fee.
-
So there is a buy back and sell on clause. 🤦♂️
The problem is the buy back clause and what is the fee. Then if its not liverpool we pay them a percentage of our profit. Im curious to see what the figures are fir this.
If it in 2 seasons a club like Liverpool are buying him back then he will have done incredibly well for us. Just treat it then like they have paid us to loan him for a couple of seasons. You have to wheel and deal in our situation.
If the buy back is something like 70-80m ill be happy with that. Feels like if he does well he just ends up back there so we did all the developing and leaves us in a hole.
The one positive is we get at least two seasons out of him as he isnt a permanent until the sumemr so they can't activate it until at least summer of 2027.
I would assume there is no way it’ll be that high.
-
Presumably the buy-back clause is the reason for the lower fee than they were looking for earlier in the window. I’d be surprised if they wanted him back for their squad, but there’s a risk that they might want him back to sell-on for a higher fee.
But if he's so good that the scenario above plays out, we just pay them the difference to remove it.
-
It will most likely be 50-60m. We aren't going to agree to one that doesn't give us a profit, or at least we shouldn't be doing that.
-
Good signing welcome to Aston Villa Harvey.
-
Does a buy-back come with any protection for us? ie If the player wants to stay at Villa does he still have to return to his "parent" if they want him at the pre-agreed amount?
-
I think buyback kicks in if we want to sell the player. Knowing who it is only likely to kick in if Barca or Real come for him.
-
Before we worry about the clauses and Liverpool buying him back, lets see how he works out for us first. Remember some of us were worrying lego hair was going to be poached by Liverpool to be their new manager.....
-
Very much not a fan of the buy back clause but I suspect it’s influenced the price we got him for.
I also get the “if Liverpool want him back that’ll mean he’s done very well” etc etc but I also remember the concern around Douglas Luiz, who had done very well, and his buy back clause.
-
Does a buy-back come with any protection for us? ie If the player wants to stay at Villa does he still have to return to his "parent" if they want him at the pre-agreed amount?
Yes. All will have been agreed. If they want him back and pay the price, he's theirs. Just like when we re-signed Philogene.
-
I think buyback kicks in if we want to sell the player. Knowing who it is only likely to kick in if Barca or Real come for him.
There are several ways they are normally setout. First refusual like we did with Philogene, forced buy-back on certain conditions (Archer) and, as with the Citeh one with Luiz, Liverpool can purchase him back for a set fee for upto 2(?) seasons.
-
For all the 'worry' over Luiz nothing came of it. With Elliot being more expensive it makes them buying him back pretty unlikely unless they either go to shit or he's amazing for us. I expect him to be good for us, but not good enough they'll want him in their squad or his value has passed the buyback amount, and they won't go to shit, sadly.
-
I was never impressed by him and having spoken to 3 red scouse fans, all said same thing, decent as a sub but can go missing in games, but then can be great, not consistent enough for them. So a bit meh, but let’s see.
-
But we have Emery.
-
I particularly enjoyed his goal against Palace. More of those please, Harvey
-
He spoke very well in his interview on AVTV.
I think this lad will settle in very well and I’m looking forward to seeing him kick on with us.
-
I was never impressed by him and having spoken to 3 red scouse fans, all said same thing, decent as a sub but can go missing in games, but then can be great, not consistent enough for them. So a bit meh, but let’s see.
He pretty much only ever played as a sub, because Salah took his main space. The few times he was started was as a number 10 or even on the left.
-
I was never impressed by him and having spoken to 3 red scouse fans, all said same thing, decent as a sub but can go missing in games, but then can be great, not consistent enough for them. So a bit meh, but let’s see.
I’ve also spoken to 3 red scousers and they all say the opposite. He’s quality. They love him and are really sorry to see him go. Opinions, I guess.
-
Sounds like the Kopites favourable structured the deal to assist us with SCR, which is quite nice of them.
-
Yeahe spoke very well i agree. I have good vibes about this one
-
Elliott is our new number 9.
As was Steven Ireland.
-
Sounds like the Kopites favourable structured the deal to assist us with SCR, which is quite nice of them.
Yeah they have helped us for sure cant criticise them for that although the sell on fee is a nice sweet spot for them
-
How did they help us ?
-
They offered to make the deal appealing for our SCR because Monchi/Vidagney were too poor at their job to think of asking for it to be a certain way.
-
They offered to make the deal appealing for our SCR because Monchi/Vidagney were too poor at their job to think of asking for it to be a certain way.
How on earth do we know this?
-
They offered to make the deal appealing for our SCR because Monchi/Vidagney were too poor at their job to think of asking for it to be a certain way.
How on earth do we know this?
Because, in his statement, Damian didn't explicitly praise the role Monchi's negotiating skills played in clinching the Elliott transfer.
-
I read it's £65m somewhere but can't find the article.
I'm delighted. I think he and Sancho both have good feet in tight spaces and will suit Unais obsession with playing narrow 10s rather than wingers, but I think Elliot will become a proper crowd favourite.
-
The buyback is £65m ? Decent if so.
-
How did they help us ?
Because by agreeing to a loan with an obligation to buy next summer, our net spend THIS season remains within the restraints placed upon us by UEFA following our fine. Had we been forced to pay for him this window, we likely would have fallen foul of those restraints, and not been able to buy him at all.
Yes, Livepool have got themselves a buy-back, and a loan fee, but by agreeing to the loan with obligation to buy we basically got the player we wanted, and stayed the right side of our specific UEFA restrictions.
-
From the article on the OS, Elliott:
“The only way to do that is to play games and there’s no better place to do that than here, especially with the manager, his philosophy, the way he plays and his trust in younger players.
*raises eyebrow, like in a gif*
-
Out of a sublimely dull transfer window, comes one sparkling light, welcome Harvey Elliot to Villa, WE NEED YOU. seriously good player with great stats, best of all he knows where the goal is, he owns that area between the posts, he doesn't think its on top of the stand or any space between each corner flag, which I'm convinced one or two of our front men think that, great shot power, play him from the start, he's only got one gear, flat out, could this be the end of these slow motion meandering starts we have, fingers crossed Uni lets him play his way.
-
From the article on the OS, Elliott:
“The only way to do that is to play games and there’s no better place to do that than here, especially with the manager, his philosophy, the way he plays and his trust in younger players.
*raises eyebrow, like in a gif*
*only if he thinks they're good enough.
-
One of the most exciting signings we've made for a good few years. Can't wait for Everton, but do worry the likes of Malan are already looking towards their next move.
-
From the article on the OS, Elliott:
“The only way to do that is to play games and there’s no better place to do that than here, especially with the manager, his philosophy, the way he plays and his trust in younger players.
*raises eyebrow, like in a gif*
To be fair, pretty much every player Unai has picked has been younger than him. Perhaps that's what they meant.
-
Well Rogers is a good example. Bogarde another. Duran didn't do badly for his age...
-
Bogarde was dropped like a stone second half of the season. But Elliot could be undroppable like Rogers. He will need to perform really.
-
Emery looked genuinely delighted to see him in the video on Instagram when he met him at the training ground. Think he wanted this one over the line.
-
I've got a good feeling about this. Elliott and Rogers linking up, Watkins running in front...
-
Good interview, seems a very grounded and likeable lad.
Hope he does well, I think he will
-
Having walked through Aston Park after the Palace game feeling like I was glad we weren't playing for a fortnight, I'm now looking forward to the next game and disappointed I have to suffer Scotland rather than Villa this week, partly to see how Elliott gets on. I'm the archetypal fickle Villa fans.
-
I'm assuming Elliot is too old for U21's now.
-
Yep.
-
From the article on the OS, Elliott:
“The only way to do that is to play games and there’s no better place to do that than here, especially with the manager, his philosophy, the way he plays and his trust in younger players.
*raises eyebrow, like in a gif*
Tbf, one of his signings has just won PFA Young Player of the Season.
-
Emery looked genuinely delighted to see him in the video on Instagram when he met him at the training ground. Think he wanted this one over the line.
I think he's wanted this one all summer.
(He looked delighted in the Malen video too!).
-
We were linked with Elliott months ago.
-
Just seems like a good fit in many respects - compliments existing options
-
I'm looking forward to seeing him play for us great signing.
-
We were linked with Elliott months ago.
Yeah, for all the talk of 'panic signings', we were linked to both Elliott and Sancho quite early in the window.
-
Has any clue been given on what Liveroool’s but back value is? As the £35m seems a pretty reasonable sum I’m guessing the buy back is quite low too.
-
Reported as £65mil by people earlier in the thread.
-
We were linked with Elliott months ago.
Yeah, for all the talk of 'panic signings', we were linked to both Elliott and Sancho quite early in the window.
Pretty sure Man U sent out an email and copied in the entire top tier clubs from all continents. Dear sir/madam, we have several formerly great players available , blah blah blah. I reckon anyone could’ve grabbed Sancho on deadline day 😂
-
We were probably linked to 348 players during the summer - FootyVillain would probably have the stats if you let him back, so the chances of us ending-up with one or two were pretty high.
-
Reported as £65mil by people earlier in the thread.
That’s a decent sum and seems very fair.
To trigger that, he'll have done brilliantly or inflation has gone mad.
-
Just watched a video of him meeting UE in the gym, Elliott seems a tactile stripling and enveloped UE in a hug, the latter tried to look like he wasn't appalled and didn't do a very good job of it.
I'm with UE, I think the fashion for hugging non family members has gone too far, and to do it to your boss. Well, really.
-
I saw him having a big smoosh with Rogers too.
-
A tactile stripping! Great lexicon.
-
Can't say I've seen too much of him as I can't really.bring myself to watch Liverpool play, so where is his best position? In the glimpses I have seen of him, he has been playing on the right, which is obviously a position of need for us.
-
We've bought a bevvy of right siders. Last season we had Ramsey, Rashford and someone else for the left. Why we can't be balanced is beyond me.
-
Can't say I've seen too much of him as I can't really.bring myself to watch Liverpool play, so where is his best position? In the glimpses I have seen of him, he has been playing on the right, which is obviously a position of need for us.
He plays where Salah plays, only he's not as quick/direct, more of a passing/combination style. Nice left foot on him. Slot used him more as a 10
-
We've bought a bevvy of right siders. Last season we had Ramsey, Rashford and someone else for the left. Why we can't be balanced is beyond me.
Maatsen, Rogers and Guessand ...
-
Watkins will usually drift left rather than right too.
-
and Sancho has played on the left as much as on the right, and has a similar goals and assists record regardless of which side he's playing.
-
Elliot can play on the right or through the middle, also had a spell playing right side of midfield. A typical Emery versatile player. I think he'll make that right side his own. McG, Rogers and Malen look as though they are happier centrally.
-
Can't say I've seen too much of him as I can't really.bring myself to watch Liverpool play, so where is his best position? In the glimpses I have seen of him, he has been playing on the right, which is obviously a position of need for us.
He plays where Salah plays, only he's not as quick/direct, more of a passing/combination style. Nice left foot on him. Slot used him more as a 10
Cheers Ads. Will be interesting to see where he used then as I think wide right and 'number 10' are both positions that need filling, presuming Rogers will play predominantly on the left.
At least we have some options for those positions now though and it will be interesting to see how it all develops.
-
Was talking to a Liverpool mate last night. Sorry to see him leave, pleased they had a buyback clause. He reckoned he hasn't got the pace to play as a wide forward and is more suited to an attacking midfield role.
-
I don't want to put too much expectation on this, no doubt he'll take time to bed in and get up to his best, but this signing turned the window around for me. To some extent.
-
I don't want to put too much expectation on this, no doubt he'll take time to bed in and get up to his best, but this signing turned the window around for me. To some extent.
And me, the spark that might ignite the team.
-
Can't say I've seen too much of him as I can't really.bring myself to watch Liverpool play, so where is his best position? In the glimpses I have seen of him, he has been playing on the right, which is obviously a position of need for us.
He plays where Salah plays, only he's not as quick/direct, more of a passing/combination style. Nice left foot on him. Slot used him more as a 10
Cheers Ads. Will be interesting to see where he used then as I think wide right and 'number 10' are both positions that need filling, presuming Rogers will play predominantly on the left.
At least we have some options for those positions now though and it will be interesting to see how it all develops.
I reckon him and Rogers may be given free reign to switch about from the middle to right.
-
Harvey Elliott is only likely to play in 9 games between now and the 31st of December.
Here's why:
When a player is signed with a buy obligation and the obligation is triggered by say making a number of appearances, at that point the player’s signing costs (loan fee plus transfer fee) must be included in a club’s accounts going forward.
The amortisation costs of that player signing would be included, pro rata, from that point onwards. It is not something that can be pushed forward until next summer because the deal is considered done from the moment a clause is triggered. Once a deal is certain to be made permanent, clubs must recognise it as such.
Villa will have to include the sums of signing Elliott from the point he plays his 10th game, but given their greatest headache is with UEFA, the European governing body whose assessment period for its ‘squad cost rule’ runs from January to December, it's most likely that his 10th (and triggering) appearance will be after 31st Dec.
-
Sancho left, rogers centre, Elliot right.
They can all pretty much swap between themselves. Lacks pace but all have different qualities.
My hunch is SJM will be crowbarred into the three, which is no bad thing and will allow them all to be rotated and kept fresh.
-
Harvey Elliott is only likely to play in 9 games between now and the 31st of December.
Here's why:
When a player is signed with a buy obligation and the obligation is triggered by say making a number of appearances, at that point the player’s signing costs (loan fee plus transfer fee) must be included in a club’s accounts going forward.
The amortisation costs of that player signing would be included, pro rata, from that point onwards. It is not something that can be pushed forward until next summer because the deal is considered done from the moment a clause is triggered. Once a deal is certain to be made permanent, clubs must recognise it as such.
Villa will have to include the sums of signing Elliott from the point he plays his 10th game, but given their greatest headache is with UEFA, the European governing body whose assessment period for its ‘squad cost rule’ runs from January to December, it's most likely that his 10th (and triggering) apeaeancd will be after 31st Dec.
Bloody hell, how many more rules can PL and UEFA have to stitch us up?
-
Harvey Elliott is only likely to play in 9 games between now and the 31st of December.
Here's why:
When a player is signed with a buy obligation and the obligation is triggered by say making a number of appearances, at that point the player’s signing costs (loan fee plus transfer fee) must be included in a club’s accounts going forward.
The amortisation costs of that player signing would be included, pro rata, from that point onwards. It is not something that can be pushed forward until next summer because the deal is considered done from the moment a clause is triggered. Once a deal is certain to be made permanent, clubs must recognise it as such.
Villa will have to include the sums of signing Elliott from the point he plays his 10th game, but given their greatest headache is with UEFA, the European governing body whose assessment period for its ‘squad cost rule’ runs from January to December, it's most likely that his 10th (and triggering) apeaeancd will be after 31st Dec.
Bloody hell, how many more rules can PL and UEFA have to stitch us up?
Couldn't...couldn't we have just upped the number of games?????
-
Harvey Elliott is only likely to play in 9 games between now and the 31st of December.
Here's why:
When a player is signed with a buy obligation and the obligation is triggered by say making a number of appearances, at that point the player’s signing costs (loan fee plus transfer fee) must be included in a club’s accounts going forward.
The amortisation costs of that player signing would be included, pro rata, from that point onwards. It is not something that can be pushed forward until next summer because the deal is considered done from the moment a clause is triggered. Once a deal is certain to be made permanent, clubs must recognise it as such.
Villa will have to include the sums of signing Elliott from the point he plays his 10th game, but given their greatest headache is with UEFA, the European governing body whose assessment period for its ‘squad cost rule’ runs from January to December, it's most likely that his 10th (and triggering) apeaeancd will be after 31st Dec.
Bloody hell, how many more rules can PL and UEFA have to stitch us up?
Couldn't...couldn't we have just upped the number of games?????
I did wonder that myself, perhaps if we'd done so the deal might have been priced differently - to the extent that it didn't go through?
-
Just imagine the conversation...
HE - "I want to leave Liverpool so that I can get regular football and further my career."
US - "We really want to sign you but we'll only be able to play you in 9 games before the New Year. Is that alright?"
-
I'm really getting fed up with this now. It just feels like there's one rule after another designed ostensibly to bar financial doping, but in reality cementing the dominance of the biggest and wealthiest clubs. After my Sky Sports deal runs out at the end of the season, I'm starting to wonder if I'll want to continue following the game in all but a distant 'in the news' way
-
Is there actually any basis to that? Or is it assumed?
-
Is there actually any basis to that? Or is it assumed?
I doubt that it's 100% accurate. What if we've got a clause in there like Chelsea did with Sancho, and can hand him back for £5m next summer? What if the 10 games thing is only PART of the clause? What if it's 10 premier league games, not 10 games in total.
I can't imagine for one moment that the club would sign him, structuring a deal that makes it permanent NEXT summer, knowing if he plays 10 games before Xmas it doesn't help us with PSR anyway?
-
I dont think playing ten games will trigger the clause immediately, it just means we are obligated to pay the £35m one the loan contract is over, so next summer.
The ten games is a weirdly low number unless Emery completely snubs him.
-
I dont think playing ten games will trigger the clause immediately, it just means we are obligated to pay the £35m one the loan contract is over, so next summer.
The ten games is a weirdly low number unless Emery completely snubs him.
Indeed, and it would be very strange if PSR rules allow you to sign players on your books as a permanent signing "outside" of a transfer window. He's not signed for us until next summer if the conditions are met. He's a loan player until next summer. If he wasn't, we'd be playing him against Liverpool!
-
Sadd has got that from the Athletic. How true it is is down to how well they have interpreted rules. Seems weird to me for us to fall into such a trap and I have never seen anything like that being interpreted before, but then how often is the obligation so low.
-
Might have some idea of whether it's true a week on Tuesday. Surely no chance we would use one of his ten games in the League Cup, if so.
-
I don’t think we’d play him in that either way.
-
Is it really from The Athletic? Is there a link to the article?
I mean that sounds pretty mad. I suppose it could be feasible if it’s 10 league starts for example… but even still, seems pretty crazy.
-
17 league games before the new year. If Unai thinks he's not match fit he'd probably get his first start in the cup against Brentford, that leaves 16 games...
-
Is it really from The Athletic? Is there a link to the article?
I mean that sounds pretty mad. I suppose it could be feasible if it’s 10 league starts for example… but even still, seems pretty crazy.
https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6601467/2025/09/07/harvey-elliott-loan-obligation-transfer-explained/
-
Would the player have wanted to agree to that? Sounds bogus.
-
Good work rate during his cameo. A bit rusty with some touches and passes, but that’ll come. If he can show a bit of class on the ball, he might be a good upgrade on Buendia.
-
One thing I liked from him today, instead of passing to the centre back to pass it out wide, he passed it out wide himself, missing out the middle man. A small thing maybe but when you're as slow as us in the build up, ever second saved helps.
Not sure what his instructions were though, one minute he playing centrally, the next he's glued to the wing completely isolated. Maybe Moyes had a word with him.
-
Don't get why he never started to be honest.
-
Was at the game, so didn't see or hear anything about why he came off at half-time. Thought he looked lively in the first half.
-
My impression of Unai is that if a player doesn’t have particularly remarkable physicality - be that pace, strength, or both, he likes to bed them in gradually. I think Elliott will be important it’ll just take a bit of time.
-
My impression of Unai is that if a player doesn’t have particularly remarkable physicality - be that pace, strength, or both, he likes to bed them in gradually. I think Elliott will be important it’ll just take a bit of time.
Just thought it was strange that he went off at half-time as I didn't think he was doing badly. Would still like to see him on the right though.
-
Tidy first half - you could see he isn't fit enough yet.
-
All the media shite-talk about why he and Sancho aren't involved. Cool your frickin' jets, they're being integrated and will get a run in the team before long.
-
Another reason why Monchi was moved aside, if Unai takes ages to integrate players then why present him with 75% of your Summer signings on deadline day.
-
Tidy first half - you could see he isn't fit enough yet.
The last corner of the first half he signalled toward the bench. I assumed when Buendia came on he’d taken a knock.
-
No Elliot again. More smoke for the clause issue. TBH, as Monchi would have agreed to that condition then you wonder if that was a final nail, ie we have a player on loan we are struggling to play for the first half of the year due to pay conditions taking us over the rules.
-
For the money we are paying, both our loans have been underwhelming so far.
-
I’d forgotten about him, same as Emery by the looks of it.!!
-
The div commentating on 5LiveXtra kept on goading Emery for not bringing him on. Classic twenty-something Sky-Six obsessed starfvcker where a Liverpool fringe player should be one of Villa's key starters.
-
If we look back to how long it took for Tielemans to adapt I think it’s a bit soon to be worrying about Elliott.
-
When you own a player, it’s fine to let them bed in. But loans… compare the impact of these pair compared to our last two. Another reason for Monchi’s exit?
-
When you own a player, it’s fine to let them bed in. But loans… compare the impact of these pair compared to our last two. Another reason for Monchi’s exit?
This isn't a loan, it's a signing that we wanted to shift into next years accounts.
Sancho is ill, just as he'd started to have an impact.
-
Isn't Elliott a perm really though? Liverpool helping us out with the positive net transfer rule that UEFA imposed on us for the summer but effectively a fee has been agreed and he's here for the long haul.
-
Feels like a loan with all the stuff about not being able play him more than 10 times and their buyback clause.
-
Suprised how little game time he has had last two games to be honest
-
Isn't Elliott a perm really though? Liverpool helping us out with the positive net transfer rule that UEFA imposed on us for the summer but effectively a fee has been agreed and he's here for the long haul.
I think he's just naturally curly.
-
I imagine the bar is higher for Elliot. He’d normally be part if he usual rotation if just a loan. However we’re obligated to buy him after X, games so we are hopefully test driving him properly before we commit most of next summers’ transfer budget
-
That 10 games thing is nonsense. Why on earth would we agree to that? It’s just internet blather that people have stated to believe.
And re the buyback clause, I don’t remember anyone saying Douglas Luiz wasn’t really our player because there was a buy back clause.
-
Yup it’s clearly bollocks. I think it’s probably just a case of taking a bit of time to adapt to Unai’s approach. He’s obviously very talented and he’ll be a big asset.
-
That 10 games thing is nonsense. Why on earth would we agree to that? It’s just internet blather that people have stated to believe.
And re the buyback clause, I don’t remember anyone saying Douglas Luiz wasn’t really our player because there was a buy back clause.
I bet Tim did.
-
He's only on loan as it helps us financially to sign him next summer, so it's obvious we want him permanently.
-
The 10 game thing is in reports from the athletic so it's not just Internet rumours. In a way it does get around the issue of registering players for the europa league as we would be compliant at the time of registration.
That said apparently the transfer amount starts to count towards this season's calculations once the obligation to buy conditions have been satisfied.
-
I’m beginning to think Emery had absolutely no input in his loan/signing whatsoever and it was all on Monchi. Onana, Barkley and Maartsen coming on before him must really make him wonder why he bothered.
-
Or maybe, like most of our signings, Rogers aside, it takes them a little bit of time to settle in. In fact Elliott has even explained this in an interview recently.
-
Or maybe, like most of our signings, Rogers aside, it takes them a little bit of time to settle in. In fact Elliott has even explained this in an interview recently.
[/quote
Fair comment, but why bother bringing someone in and hardly using them?
-
It’s only seven games into a season.
-
I’m beginning to think Emery had absolutely no input in his loan/signing whatsoever and it was all on Monchi. Onana, Barkley and Maartsen coming on before him must really make him wonder why he bothered.
Barkley in particular coming on in the position he plays must have been a real kick in the spuds.
-
As soon as he let's those curls blossom on his bonce again, he'll be back in.
-
He’s getting the tough love treatment right now (ask Tielemans) but he’ll be fine. Good player, Unai wants him to be totally in tune with the system before trusting him.
-
I'm sure he'll eventually do a Tielemans, but he's probably wondering why he's swapped not coming off Liverpool's bench for not coming off ours.
-
Yeah Unai does do this, but once they’re in they are fully in.
-
I don't think Unai wanted him and it wouldn't surprise me at all if he goes back to LFC come Jan, with an agreement being made to cancel the loan. I don't think he'll make the ten games, it was telling that Barkley came on. It may just be one of those things where something just doesn't work out.
-
I think it’s way too soon to judge that.
-
It's just a feeling, he may well go on to have a fabulous career with us and I'd be chuffed if he did as I rate him, but I'd still not be surprised if he went back to Liverpool in Jan.
-
I think Liverpool need him more than us .
-
It’s the ten appearance clause.
-
I’m beginning to think Emery had absolutely no input in his loan/signing whatsoever and it was all on Monchi. Onana, Barkley and Maartsen coming on before him must really make him wonder why he bothered.
Barkley in particular coming on in the position he plays must have been a real kick in the spuds.
Barkley came on for Onana as part of the mid two.
Elliott is a 10 isn’t he? It’s Buendía who seems to have blossomed ahead of him.
-
Emery said a lot of good things about Elliott and vice versa.
He's a clever player who works hard, had a long season last season and is now adapting to another manager's way of working. He's had Klopp, Slot and Carsley in the last 18 months and now he has a proper manager!
-
It’s the ten appearance clause.
Surely that's nonsense though?
We agreed to sign one of the most highly-rated young players in world football, but now that we have him we're deliberately not playing him so that we don't have to buy him?
Wouldn't it have made more sense to just not try and buy him in the first place?
-
If the need to pay for him (or at least have his value hit the books) when he hits 10 is true, then delaying those 10 into the next calendar year does appear to be the call being made.
-
Why would we do that, though? Agree to that clause?
-
I think it is as simple as little Emi's form has been a massively pleasant surprise to everyone, Unai included, which means we can introduce Harvey more slowly. I expect him to start on Thursday.
-
Why would we do that, though? Agree to that clause?
Might be a reason why Monchi was out the door if he didn't realise the payments hit the books on the activation of the permanent deal. I think someone pointed it out in the Uefa rules soon after we had him on loan.
-
Why would we do that, though? Agree to that clause?
Because Liverpool didn't want it to be a loan deal, and that was their clause. And they helped us out by agreeing to Loan to Buy, but with stipulations?
-
Why would we do that, though? Agree to that clause?
And why would Liverpool care one way or the other? They know they're selling him to us. Makes no difference to them when we pay them the money.
In a deal where you loan the player and it automatically becomes permanent the following summer, the "value" of the transfer hits the books when it becomes permanent, that's why those deals are structured like that. To sign the player but defer the fee into a different accountancy period.
Why would it be different in Elliott's case to every other transfer?
-
Because they want the money sooner and if they don't get it, then they weaken the opposition.
-
https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6601467/2025/09/07/harvey-elliott-loan-obligation-transfer-explained/
Harvey Elliott is only likely to play in 9 games between now and the 31st of December.
Here's why:
When a player is signed with a buy obligation and the obligation is triggered by say making a number of appearances, at that point the player’s signing costs (loan fee plus transfer fee) must be included in a club’s accounts going forward.
The amortisation costs of that player signing would be included, pro rata, from that point onwards. It is not something that can be pushed forward until next summer because the deal is considered done from the moment a clause is triggered. Once a deal is certain to be made permanent, clubs must recognise it as such.
Villa will have to include the sums of signing Elliott from the point he plays his 10th game, but given their greatest headache is with UEFA, the European governing body whose assessment period for its ‘squad cost rule’ runs from January to December, it's most likely that his 10th (and triggering) appearance will be after 31st Dec.
It is no different, just that most people have the permanent deal hitting at more games and/or other arbituary figures. We seem to have our on 10 games so will hit us at a time when we don't need it. But it depends on whether the above is true or not really.
-
I think it is as simple as little Emi's form has been a massively pleasant surprise to everyone, Unai included, which means we can introduce Harvey more slowly. I expect him to start on Thursday.
Yep, pretty much exactly what I think is happening.
Also if the 10 games thing was real why would we be giving him short cameos at the end of games (4 minutes against Feyenoord for example) that's a really wasteful use of the 9 games we can play him in before January if such a clause exists and we're limiting his game time because of it.
-
If the clause exists, it's possible it only applies to PL games, I guess.
-
https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6601467/2025/09/07/harvey-elliott-loan-obligation-transfer-explained/
Harvey Elliott is only likely to play in 9 games between now and the 31st of December.
Here's why:
When a player is signed with a buy obligation and the obligation is triggered by say making a number of appearances, at that point the player’s signing costs (loan fee plus transfer fee) must be included in a club’s accounts going forward.
The amortisation costs of that player signing would be included, pro rata, from that point onwards. It is not something that can be pushed forward until next summer because the deal is considered done from the moment a clause is triggered. Once a deal is certain to be made permanent, clubs must recognise it as such.
Villa will have to include the sums of signing Elliott from the point he plays his 10th game, but given their greatest headache is with UEFA, the European governing body whose assessment period for its ‘squad cost rule’ runs from January to December, it's most likely that his 10th (and triggering) appearance will be after 31st Dec.
It is no different, just that most people have the permanent deal hitting at more games and/or other arbituary figures. We seem to have our on 10 games so will hit us at a time when we don't need it. But it depends on whether the above is true or not really.
If that were true, we're not going to be bringing him on to close out the last four minutes of a relatively comfortable 2-0 lead like we did two weeks ago.
-
If the clause exists, it's possible it only applies to PL games, I guess.
But still 20minutes at Everton and half an hour at Sunderland don't feel like the sort of appearances you'd make if this was about limiting how often he plays rather than about slowly integrating him into the squad.
More importantly, these appearances are very similar to how Tielemans was used for the first 2-3months at the club. It was only really from about the middle of November that he started playing regularly in the league.
-
If the clause exists, it's possible it only applies to PL games, I guess.
But still 20minutes at Everton and half an hour at Sunderland don't feel like the sort of appearances you'd make if this was about limiting how often he plays rather than about slowly integrating him into the squad.
More importantly, these appearances are very similar to how Tielemans was used for the first 2-3months at the club. It was only really from about the middle of November that he started playing regularly in the league.
Sure, I'm not arguing that it exists (I don't care either way). I only give it any credence because the NYT, despite what it's become, wouldn't publish something like that unless they could stand it up (and it's too boring a subject to be worth lying about), and, much more importantly, whnever we hear a rumour that the club has done something weird it always seems to end up being true.
-
It's The Athletic originally isn't it, or are they owned by the NYT?
-
They bought it.
-
Why would we do that, though? Agree to that clause?
We agreed the obligation after 10 appearances.
-
If the need to pay for him (or at least have his value hit the books) when he hits 10 is true, then delaying those 10 into the next calendar year does appear to be the call being made.
I don’t think it’d work like that. We’d trigger a clause that would mean we’re obligated to sign him in June.
-
If the need to pay for him (or at least have his value hit the books) when he hits 10 is true, then delaying those 10 into the next calendar year does appear to be the call being made.
I don’t think it’d work like that. We’d trigger a clause that would mean we’re obligated to sign him in June.
Yeah seems a pretty flawed idea otherwise. Clearly we fancy him - as its in dones interest for him to be here but not only play 9 games
-
If the need to pay for him (or at least have his value hit the books) when he hits 10 is true, then delaying those 10 into the next calendar year does appear to be the call being made.
I don’t think it’d work like that. We’d trigger a clause that would mean we’re obligated to sign him in June.
The initial potential issues was raised by the Athletic based on their interpretation of UEFA rules.
Uefa rules on loans with buy conditions are here (https://documents.uefa.com/r/UEFA-Club-Licensing-and-Financial-Sustainability-Regulations-2025/G.4-Accounting-requirements-for-the-temporary-transfer-of-a-player-s-registration-Online).
The key point seems to be.
G.4.6
Loan of a player from the lender club to the new club with a conditional obligation to buy:
If a condition is considered to be virtually certain, then the player’s registration must be recognised by both clubs as a permanent transfer from the inception of the loan agreement.
If the fulfilment of a condition cannot be assessed with sufficient certainty to trigger the permanent transfer from the inception of the loan, then the player’s registration must be recognised first as a loan and then as a permanent transfer once the condition is met.
In theory, you would have thought the 10 game condition was virtually certain, but they do seem to indicate we have to register him as permanent once the condition has been met. Nothing about the finance side there though.
-
So why are non-conditional loans with an obligation to buy a thing then?
On here, and pretty much everywhere else I've seen it has always been assumed that it's because everyone wants the transfer to happen, but it's agreed to shunt the fee into the next financial window.
If that's not the case, because the transfer monies go on everyone's books as soon as it's confirmed that it's definitely happening...why do they exist rather than just a normal transfer?
-
Those are UEFA rules, not necessarily domestic rules so it might be that most don't come under them. But how many obligations to buy are there. Most come under options to buy (pretty sure Raya was an option for example).
-
I will also point out that if it is unconditional obligation, then UEFA treat that as a "bought now" and definitely affects finances. (Which I can understand really). As I stated, they don't have similar lines in the conditional obligations so potentially finances are not affected.
G.4.4
Loan of a player from the lender club to the new club with an unconditional obligation to buy:
The loan must be reflected by the lender club as a permanent transfer and the player’s registration rights must be derecognised from its intangible assets. The proceeds from the loan and from the future permanent transfer must be recognised from the inception of the loan agreement.
The directly attributable costs of the loan and the future permanent transfer for the new club must be recognised by the new club in accordance with the accounting requirements for permanent acquisition of a player’s registration.
-
Unless there’s something in this clause or Emery just doesn’t want him then there’s no other reason why he shouldn’t have got on the pitch tonight.
-
His wages are proving a great way to spend money.
-
Unai does have some players where it takes time. It is odd though, hopefully it’ll be as successful as it has been with Tielemans.
-
Fucking hell, between him, Sancho, Lindelot and Guessand that's some money pissed up the wall as a parting gift by gormless Monchi.
-
I said this a few pages ago but I really would not be surprised to see him return to LFC in Jan.
-
Seemed like Emery was making a point tonight. We absolutely didn't need to see Guessand for any more than about 55mins. Rogers on right wing was odd.
-
Beginning to feel sorry for the lad.He arrived with such enthusiasm, Unai hugged him for gawd's sake. Surely he would have done better than Guessand?
-
That he's not getting on the field at all suggests something is up, either Unai wasn't that sold on him in the first place or he trains like a drain.
-
Unless there’s something in this clause or Emery just doesn’t want him then there’s no other reason why he shouldn’t have got on the pitch tonight.
Exiled for passing the ball too quickly.
We absolutely needed players to move the ball much quicker in the second half. Or at least get shots off from around the edge of the box.
I don't quite buy Emery didn't want him and it was a Monchi vanity signing but us making four subs and he dosen't even get on in a relatively low key group stage game does make you wonder....
-
He was the England U21 captain that just won the Euros. Although not a starter for Liverpool, always did a solid effort when he came on for them.
Now he can't get a kick for a much changed team in a European away game? Something is up.
-
He was the England U21 captain that just won the Euros. Although not a starter for Liverpool, always did a solid effort when he came on for them.
Now he can't get a kick for a much changed team in a European away game? Something is up.
Thats probably with u21s you can look great at that level then when it comes to the PL its a completely different animal
-
He was the England U21 captain that just won the Euros. Although not a starter for Liverpool, always did a solid effort when he came on for them.
Now he can't get a kick for a much changed team in a European away game? Something is up.
Thats probably with u21s you can look great at that level then when it comes to the PL its a completely different animal
Which is why I made the point about Liverpool as well.
-
He was the England U21 captain that just won the Euros. Although not a starter for Liverpool, always did a solid effort when he came on for them.
Now he can't get a kick for a much changed team in a European away game? Something is up.
In all honesty, u21 international football is a bit of a nonsense grade. My biggest concern with Elliot is that he's a bit lightweight, that doesn't get tested at u21 level but to step up and compete with say McGinn is a different ball game really.
All that being said we had a serious issue on our right today. Lindelof is an average centre back, a stop gap right back. Ahead of him Guessand was beyond awful. Elliot could easily have come on there, especially when Cash came on.
-
I was convinced he’d play tonight as he was on the social media put out by the Villa for the game. Maybe he’s being bedded in slowly like Tielemans?
-
Feels like there are a few £m reasons he isn’t getting game time, call me a cynic.
-
Unai clearly doesn’t rate or want him.
Limit his appearances to next to nothing, then we don’t have to pay the appearance clause and we can send him back.
Waste of wages though.
-
He would have had more minutes on the pitch if he'd stayed at Liverpool. A strange signing.
-
I think the most likely story is that we expected to sell Buendia and that, having failed to do so, assumed that Elliott would be behind him in the pecking order. That has been reversed following Emi's renaissance. We probably don't need both so maybe some at the club think it would be more frugal to keep the player who already plays for us than to pay for a replacement who has yet to prove that he'll be an upgrade.
-
I would be pissed off if I could not get into that team.
Can not be worse than Guessand,.
-
Unless he's thick at understanding tactics, I don't get it. Guessand playing the full 94 minutes (should have been well over 100, ref was bent) is another head-scratcher.
-
Increasingly hard to shake the view it’s a signing Emery didn’t want.
-
Can we send him back in January and use the money elsewhere,
-
Increasingly hard to shake the view it’s a signing Emery didn’t want.
Maybe, but that likely could have been the take on Tielemans too. It could be Emery bedding him in.
-
There's no way he plays on Sunday if he hasn't got on the past few weeks. Then he can't play next week even we wanted him to as we play Liverpool. If he doesn't play against Maccabi Tel Aviv, then I'll be firmly in the 'what's the point of having him' camp.
-
He's been a complete waste of money so far as he never gets a chance to show us what he can, or can't, do.
-
He's been a complete waste of money so far as he never gets a chance to show us what he can, or can't, do.
Well it depends - if this is all about bedding in, understanding tactical expectations etc and it basically gives him the foundation to have a brilliant career at Villa it’s probably a necessary thing and not a waste. If, however, he makes no impact and this is just Unai doesn’t rate him then a massive waste. We shall see.
-
He's been a complete waste of money so far as he never gets a chance to show us what he can, or can't, do.
Or perhaps he's showing the person that actually matters, who's turning him into the next big thing.
-
It’s gone on so long now that even I’m starting to believe this appearance clause and wondering if that was the last straw for Monchi’s position when the Club worked out we had signed a player we can’t use!
-
Can we send him back in January and use the money elsewhere,
There will probably be a clause, possibly if he's featured in less than ten games by the time January comes around?
Wonder what wages we are paying him? It's been commonly reported we're paying 80% of Sancho's.
This is where any neutral sympathy for us regarding PSR complaints goes out of the window I think.
-
In theory it would be whatever wages he was on at Liverpool which as he came through the academies, wouldn't be massive compared to Sancho making a £70mil move to a "rich" team. Someone mentioned 40k previously.
-
It's very odd. He looks like a good player, but the lack of minutes seems to go beyond 'bedding in' now.
-
It's very odd. He looks like a good player, but the lack of minutes seems to go beyond 'bedding in' now.
And he scored one of those things when he actually did play.
-
In theory it would be whatever wages he was on at Liverpool which as he came through the academies, wouldn't be massive compared to Sancho making a £70mil move to a "rich" team. Someone mentioned 40k previously.
Those internet sites that work out / guess what players earn have him at around £60,000 at Liverpool, so I imagine he would ask for more than that to move to us.
He also didn't come through their academy - they signed him from (the fringes of) Fulham's first team.
-
It’s gone on so long now that even I’m starting to believe this appearance clause and wondering if that was the last straw for Monchi’s position when the Club worked out we had signed a player we can’t use!
Last night put me into this camp. There's no way he's not involved in that game without a better explanation than bedding in.
-
They signed him 6 years ago when he was 16 so I would argue he has come through their acadamy the same with any of the players we have signed from elsewhere in that age bracket has come through ours, like Bogarde.
-
They signed him 6 years ago when he was 16 so I would argue he has come through their acadamy the same with any of the players we have signed from elsewhere in that age bracket has come through ours, like Bogarde.
I'd argue that you need to spend a period of time playing for academy teams to "come through an academy". He was a first-team player at Fulham, went straight into the Liverpool first team squad, spent a year playing in the Championship for Blackburn and then straight back into the Liverpool first team squad. I think he might have played a dozen or so games in their U23s.
I'd say it's bit more like saying that Duran came through our academy than the Bogarde comparison - he was signed very young, but he was signed very young to be in the first-team squad rather than the academy.
-
How long did Tielemans have to wait before Emery trusted him? I think it’s as simple as that. He plays in such a key position and until Unai has 100% confident that he is ready he’ll be a bit-part player at best. I imagine if the team had done their jobs properly last night then he’d have been in line for a run out for the last 15.
-
How long did Tielemans have to wait before Emery trusted him? I think it’s as simple as that. He plays in such a key position and until Unai has 100% confident that he is ready he’ll be a bit-part player at best
I think this is more logical than the number-of-matches thing, but it's weird how Guessand is fine and doesn't need any time to bed in at all.
-
How long did Tielemans have to wait before Emery trusted him? I think it’s as simple as that. He plays in such a key position and until Unai has 100% confident that he is ready he’ll be a bit-part player at best
I think this is more logical than the number-of-matches thing, but it's weird how Guessand is fine and doesn't need any time to bed in at all.
I would suspect level of defensive effort has something to do with that. The main thing Guessand is bringing at the moment is workrate.
-
How long did Tielemans have to wait before Emery trusted him? I think it’s as simple as that. He plays in such a key position and until Unai has 100% confident that he is ready he’ll be a bit-part player at best
I think this is more logical than the number-of-matches thing, but it's weird how Guessand is fine and doesn't need any time to bed in at all.
I wonder if it’s just the fact that playing in front of Cash, he wants someone like Guessand who’s willing to work back and help out with the dirty work. That’s one area I have been impressed with him. It’s also coincided with Cash improving.
Elliot’s role is probably very different.
-
The difference between Tielemans and Elliott is that Tielemans was our player. We had signed him, he wasnt on loan.
If you are bringing in a loanee, with an intent to buy or not, he doesn’t have the same benefit of time being on his side.
Why on earth bring in a loanee, at great cost, and then not play him ?
Unless of course, he was a complete panic acquisition and is not particularly needed or wanted.
-
The difference between Tielemans and Elliott is that Tielemans was our player. We had signed him, he wasnt on loan.
If you are bringing in a loanee, with an intent to buy or not, he doesn’t have the same benefit of time being on his side.
Why on earth bring in a loanee, at great cost, and then not play him ?
Unless of course, he was a complete panic acquisition and is not particularly needed or wanted.
Isn’t it a loan with an obligation to buy, structured that way to help us out? So to all intents and purposes a permanent signing. In which case I don’t see that it makes a great deal of difference from an acclimatising point of view.
-
I thought he had to play 10 games before it became permenent?
-
Tielemans was involved on the pitch in some way for every single match apart from the few matches he was injured.
-
I thought he had to play 10 games before it became permenent?
He does, but when he becomes permanent, he supposedly hits the books at the figure we were quoted for by UEFA and will put us outside the positive funding. I wonder who we might sell in January to fund him.
-
How long did Tielemans have to wait before Emery trusted him? I think it’s as simple as that. He plays in such a key position and until Unai has 100% confident that he is ready he’ll be a bit-part player at best
I think this is more logical than the number-of-matches thing, but it's weird how Guessand is fine and doesn't need any time to bed in at all.
Maybe a combination of he has options in central midfield so can afford to be patient annd even though his end product is lacking Guessand is doing the job asked of him.
-
How long did Tielemans have to wait before Emery trusted him? I think it’s as simple as that. He plays in such a key position and until Unai has 100% confident that he is ready he’ll be a bit-part player at best
I think this is more logical than the number-of-matches thing, but it's weird how Guessand is fine and doesn't need any time to bed in at all.
Maybe a combination of he has options in central midfield so can afford to be patient annd even though his end product is lacking Guessand is doing the job asked of him.
But Elliott isn't really a central-midfielder - he plays in that slightly wide-right postition that McGinn does for us. When we signed him, the talk was the he wanted to leave Liverpool because he wasn't getting enough opportunity with Salah being undroppable in the position he would have played for them.
Which would mean that he would doing a combination of the job that McGinn / Malen / Guessand has done for us so far.
-
How long did Tielemans have to wait before Emery trusted him? I think it’s as simple as that. He plays in such a key position and until Unai has 100% confident that he is ready he’ll be a bit-part player at best
I think this is more logical than the number-of-matches thing, but it's weird how Guessand is fine and doesn't need any time to bed in at all.
I wonder if it’s just the fact that playing in front of Cash, he wants someone like Guessand who’s willing to work back and help out with the dirty work. That’s one area I have been impressed with him. It’s also coincided with Cash improving.
Elliot’s role is probably very different.
That's it for me. He came on v Everton to help Cash out v Grealish and it worked reasonably well. We are also a bit short physically in the team anyway particularly if Mings isn't playing so Guessand is another body at set piece time. He also has his uses pressing from the front and slowing down the ball coming at us.
But I think Emery is overthinking it a bit too. McGinn in the first half that day v Everton was dropping onto KDH and not Grealish, that was a tactical error. McGinn on right > x 10 than Guessand. I can't see how Elliot provided his fitness and workrate is up to scratch can't do a lot of what Guessand does. Particularly games like last night where we know we will own the ball. Guessand despite slowing down the opponent a bit, also gives the ball away a lot as his touch is so poor, his weight of pass is poor. That defensive forward role isn't sustainable really.
-
He'll be first choice next season when we've sold Rogers.
-
I’d honestly start Elliot instead of Guessand on Sunday as I’m now beyond thinking he’s not very good, he’s a liability. I’m still totally flummoxed as to what he was attempting with that cross/shot hit with pace and curve. It was something that you’d expect from someone who’s never kicked a ball in their life.
-
We really lack pace up front and whatever he is, Elliott isn't that. I'd put Sancho in for Guessand.
-
We really lack pace up front and whatever he is, Elliott isn't that. I'd put Sancho in for Guessand.
After watching THAT cross last night I'd put myself ahead of Guessand.
-
We really lack pace up front and whatever he is, Elliott isn't that. I'd put Sancho in for Guessand.
Sancho turned it in at Man United when asked to play on the right. Would he be guaranteed to put a shift in supporting Cash? I'm not so sure. I think Guessand will start v Man City anyway again. When Tielemans gets back fully fit, McGinn will find a way back in that position. I thought Elliot would be an option there but not in Emery's eyes yet.
It's not really a great look when none of Malen, Guessand, Elliot or Sancho look a great fit for our setup but Ramsey was allowed leave instead. Same in midfield, Onana still delivering the square root of fuck all when it matters and Douglas Luiz starring for Forest last night v Porto.
-
Central midfield isn't a problem. We need a pacy winger. If not Guessand or Sancho then fast-track Broggio.
-
How long did Tielemans have to wait before Emery trusted him? I think it’s as simple as that. He plays in such a key position and until Unai has 100% confident that he is ready he’ll be a bit-part player at best
I think this is more logical than the number-of-matches thing, but it's weird how Guessand is fine and doesn't need any time to bed in at all.
Maybe a combination of he has options in central midfield so can afford to be patient annd even though his end product is lacking Guessand is doing the job asked of him.
But Elliott isn't really a central-midfielder - he plays in that slightly wide-right postition that McGinn does for us. When we signed him, the talk was the he wanted to leave Liverpool because he wasn't getting enough opportunity with Salah being undroppable in the position he would have played for them.
Which would mean that he would doing a combination of the job that McGinn / Malen / Guessand has done for us so far.
Fair enough but the point about options still stands.
-
Elliott is a really good player and he will be a really good player for us I’m pretty certain.
-
It's not really a great look when none of Malen, Guessand, Elliot or Sancho look a great fit for our setup but Ramsey was allowed leave instead. Same in midfield, Onana still delivering the square root of fuck all when it matters and Douglas Luiz starring for Forest last night v Porto.
Agreed re Ramsey and the others who have come in. I think Elliott is a super footballer but Emery ain't trusting him or doesn't see him fitting well into the required style of play.
Central midfield isn't a problem. We need a pacy winger. If not Guessand or Sancho then fast-track Broggio.
Central midfield with Onana in is weak compared to having YT, SJM or Bogarde alongside Kamara. I totally agree, however, that we need to pacy-winger option, and Guessand ain't that option; whether Sancho is remains to be seen.
-
Well Unai has been pretty clear.
-
Could we have not just paid Ramsey what he wanted and not bothered with Sancho and Elliott? It looks like we can get by ok without these two lads. Granted, JJ would have missed half the season with injury but God, I miss seeing one of our own get us up the pitch with pace and power, scaring the shit out of the Mavropanoses and Calvin Basseys of this PL world.
-
Could we have not just paid Ramsey what he wanted and not bothered with Sancho and Elliott? It looks like we can get by ok without these two lads. Granted, JJ would have missed half the season with injury but God, I miss seeing one of our own get us up the pitch with pace and power, scaring the shit out of the Mavropanoses and Calvin Basseys of this PL world.
**clappy thing**
-
Obviously the £40m he brought in, did help ward-off the UEFA auditors...
-
He must have some regrets about joining us. He'd have played more football if he'd stayed at Liverpool.
-
You never know obviously, but I’m confident he’ll go on to have a good career with us. He’s a real talent.
-
Speaking ahead of Aston Villa's fixture against Manchester City and following the 2-1 defeat to Go Ahead Eagles in the Europa League, Unai Emery praised Harvey Elliott's attitude and work rate in training but admitted his performances have not yet reached the level required.
The Spaniard emphasised Elliott remains an important part of the squad, urging him to continue working hard to find his rhythm and confidence within Villa's tactical structure.
Emery said: "I am being very, very demanding myself to choose in each match the player to start and the players on the bench and the subs players, and firstly is always trying to get the best performance collectively, through individual players.
"Harvey is a 10 in our structure, in our shape, and he plays some matches, and there is still adaptation to add himself individually in our structure.
"Of course, he is training well, and his commitment is being very well as well, but his performance was not enough (up to this point).
"At the same time, we have other players who can play as 10, and they are performing well, and I have different players.
"This is the main reason he is not playing the last match but he has to continue working like he is doing in the training session, and of course getting his confidence in the performance."
-
Telling everyone he's too shit and stupid to play in our so very complex system will really help his confidence.
-
Well if Unai only sees him as a 10, Buendia is going to have to stop being the man of the moment and Rogers will have to get injured for Harvey Ballbanger Elliott to come back in.
-
Well if Unai only sees him as a 10, Buendia is going to have to stop being the man of the moment and Rogers will have to get injured for Harvey Ballbanger Elliott to come back in.
And Tielemans will be preferred when fit.
Hard to think of a future for him at Villa, as a loan signing.
-
I was a bit underwhelmed when we signed him, but others on here got me a bit more excited having seen him play for England U21s. As fans it’s impossible to judge him at the moment, but Unai has obviously not seen enough to get him on the pitch. Not really sure what to make of that. Was it a panic signing? Weird.
-
All the deadline day signings we're panicky.
-
Telling everyone he's too shit and stupid to play in our so very complex system will really help his confidence.
Fortunately Emery didn't say that.
-
However you analyze it, this is becoming absurd.
Waiting for Harvey is like waiting for Godot.
-
Telling everyone he's too shit and stupid to play in our so very complex system will really help his confidence.
Fortunately Emery didn't say that.
Obviously I was exaggerating but it wouldn't fill me with comfidence if i'd just joined a club and the manager said that.
-
There has been a total disconnect with what Emery needs/needed and what we ended up with in Lindelof, Guessand, Sancho and Elliot.
-
He’s a really talented player - Emi has done great, but Elliott’s ceiling is higher. Once he learns the style he’ll be excellent.
-
Telling everyone he's too shit and stupid to play in our so very complex system will really help his confidence.
Fortunately Emery didn't say that.
Obviously I was exaggerating but it wouldn't fill me with comfidence if i'd just joined a club and the manager said that.
I’m sure Emery has explained it better to him personally especially if he’s keen to keep him. I can’t think of any players we’ve had that have excelled that have had a bad word to say about him, normally quite thankful of how he’s helped their career.
-
I think he’s ok up to now. But he needs to be given more time on the pitch pretty soon - he is good and it’s getting to the point where it’s becoming an issue which just starts to create unhelpful noise.
-
The way he has been used so far (or not depending on your viewpoint) begs the question about who signed him and whether Unai even wanted him at the club. It isn't a good look for anyone and I do actually feel a bit sorry for the lad.
-
There has been a total disconnect with what Emery needs/needed and what we ended up with in Lindelof, Guessand, Sancho and Elliot.
I suspect the latter two weren't available for us until the last minute during the window. Both have a role to play in our squad but need to be given minutes; particularly Elliott.
-
I find it a bit funny that anyone would be stressed about a new Emery signing not getting on the same page as him early on. With 7 months and loads of games to go plus accepting there will be injuries. He will be just fine.
-
There has been a total disconnect with what Emery needs/needed and what we ended up with in Lindelof, Guessand, Sancho and Elliot.
I suspect the latter two weren't available for us until the last minute during the window. Both have a role to play in our squad but need to be given minutes; particularly Elliott.
Elliott definitely wasn't. It was Liverpool signing Isak when he became available.
-
I find it a bit funny that anyone would be stressed about a new Emery signing not getting on the same page as him early on. With 7 months and loads of games to go plus accepting there will be injuries. He will be just fine.
I sort of agree but the minutes given so far to Guessand compared to Elliott is strange.
-
I find it a bit funny that anyone would be stressed about a new Emery signing not getting on the same page as him early on. With 7 months and loads of games to go plus accepting there will be injuries. He will be just fine.
I sort of agree but the minutes given so far to Guessand compared to Elliott is strange.
Emery said it’s the position Elliott is fighting for which is the ten role. At the moment we have Rogers and Buendia playing those roles and Elliott isn’t up to speed yet. We are quite unique where we play with two on the pitch. Last season it was Rogers and Asensio.
I did see an interview a few weeks back with Elliott and he mentioned the differences at Villa to Liverpool are very different.
Guessand on the other hand hand is being asked to play a more traditional style right midfielder, helping the full back and the attack and generally keeping that shape.
I’m sure that’s all that’s happening and no other reason.
-
Yeah, it's all great. We take an emerging talent from the Premier league champions, who was England's best player in the summer's U21 success and and hardly put him on the pitch. Nothing to see here.
-
Would be good to have been asked about it by the not so switched on interviewer before the game, although one player doesn't make a squad I suppose.
-
Unless he’s injured it is a ‘thing’ he’s not even in the squad.
-
more of a chance to get on the bench if emi misses a few games.
-
Unai Emery on Harvey Elliott:
"In the squad today we needed to take one player out, and I decided for him. I am happy with him. He is training good. His commitment is fantastic and he is a good guy. Only tactical decision.
I spoke with him about it. My advice was to keep going, training, and when it is his opportunity, to play well. He is a very good player. Our demands are in the high level. He needs time to work and wait for his moment."
-
Paul Elliot has more chance of starting a game than this guy.
-
Paul Elliot has more chance of starting a game than this guy.
Elliott from ET has more chance of starting a game than this guy.
-
It’s a very long season. Harvey Elliott, Paul Elliot and Elliott from ET will get there chances.
-
Paul Elliot has more chance of starting a game than this guy.
Elliott from ET has more chance of starting a game than this guy.
Dr. Elliott from Scrubs has more chance, and she is more interested in ice hockey.
-
Eliot Ness has more chance.And he thought he was untouchable.
-
Fred Elliott more likely to get a run out. I say, Fred Elliot more likely to get a run out.
-
George Elliott has more chance of starting a game than this bloke. So has Mary Ann Evans for that matter.
-
My middle name has more chance of starting …
If he doesn’t play too much can we send him back?
-
He may have step up now after seeing Buendia limp out the ground on crutches. Let’s hope he’s up to speed and we don’t miss our wee Emi.
-
Yep he’s going to have his chance in the coming weeks now.
-
Thought not in the coming one.
-
No, quite correct.
-
Do we need him, or more to the point, would our limited money be better invested elsewhere?
Seems he is behind Rogers, Tillemans, Buendia for the ten role. Competing with McGinn, Guessand and potentially Sancho for the RW position. Starting to think the money would be better invested in a pacy winger.
-
Tielemans isn’t very good there. Emi B has done great, but a bit premature to assume it’s something long-term as opposed to a brief up tick in form. I’d love Rogers to stay long-term, but would imagine he’ll be off next summer or the following depending what this new contract talk is about.
So I can quickly see why Elliott could be very important to us.
-
Tielemans isn’t very good there. Emi B has done great, but a bit premature to assume it’s something long-term as opposed to a brief up tick in form. I’d love Rogers to stay long-term, but would imagine he’ll be off next summer or the following depending what this new contract talk is about.
So I can quickly see why Elliott could be very important to us.
I suppose my worry is buying Elliot increases the likelihood that we must sell Rogers. Keeping Rogers and having Buendia as reserve seems a sensible balance to me and should mean the £30m can be spent elsewhere.
-
Do we need him, or more to the point, would our limited money be better invested elsewhere?
Seems he is behind Rogers, Tillemans, Buendia for the ten role. Competing with McGinn, Guessand and potentially Sancho for the RW position. Starting to think the money would be better invested in a pacy winger.
Except we don't play with wingers really, pacey or otherwise. See Malen. Tielemans and Buendia injured now opens up an opportunity for him and Sancho to a degree. Not making the squad even would suggest he has quite a bit of work ahead of him.
-
I think we’ll look back at the end of the season and be saying “that was a weird start, but what a player we have here”. He’s a big talent and I think he’ll be a really good player for us.
-
On the basis he can’t play vs his parent club on Saturday it might be another Unai master stroke to keep the playing unit as one. Elliott can still continue in more underhand ways…
-
Do we need him, or more to the point, would our limited money be better invested elsewhere?
Seems he is behind Rogers, Tillemans, Buendia for the ten role. Competing with McGinn, Guessand and potentially Sancho for the RW position. Starting to think the money would be better invested in a pacy winger.
Except we don't play with wingers really, pacey or otherwise. See Malen. Tielemans and Buendia injured now opens up an opportunity for him and Sancho to a degree. Not making the squad even would suggest he has quite a bit of work ahead of him.
I agree with that, but I do feel one of the three (plus the striker) should have express pace and threaten the space on the outside/behind. They can't all turn back into traffic otherwise we are too predictable. Bailey, for example, became a much bigger threat once he offered a threat going on the outside rather than just chopping back onto his left foot.
-
Started like Tielemens did - he got it after 6 months or so
-
Tielemans was getting a lot more minutes the first couple of months.
-
Tielemans was getting a lot more minutes the first couple of months.
In a weaker squad (even Zaniolo was getting starts ahead of Youri in his first few months with us), and his performances were less than inspiring until I think November time in his first year with us? Then Emery starting tweaking the formation to include him instead of a wider midfielder, and he went from strength to strength.
Plus, he was an established international with a top-5 national side and had 150 Premier League appearances to his name. He had plenty of experience before coming to us. Elliott doesn't have that.
I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing that Elliott hasn't yet thrived in our side, and our set up. He's clearly talented, and as with any talented player, I'd trust Unai to get the best out of them (eventually), even if it doesn't happen overnight.
-
Elliott has also played a season for Liverpool, followed by a starting role in the U21 Euros . A rest whilst he adapts will make him and us stronger for the second part of the season.
-
I read somewhere he only started 1 or 2 Premier League games last season.
-
Started like Tielemens did - he got it after 6 months or so
Tielemans played in every premier league match he was fit for that first season.
-
I read somewhere he only started 1 or 2 Premier League games last season.
Yeah, he had like 20 appearances for Liverpool last season, but they were almost all as a sub, and the minutes added up to something like 4 complete games all season. Bogarde played more Premier League football than Harvey last season.
-
Obviously we couldn’t today, but we need to start playing Elliott. He brings a lot of what we’re missing at the moment, in terms of craft and chance creation.
-
Perosnally - given the FFP stuff - I would send him back at the earliest opportunity. If were spending 35-40m we need it to get a player we need to be sure as we cant afford mis-steps.
Emery clearly doesnt fancy him - and only sees him as a 10. Theres at least 4 players ahead of him in that role so we may as well not bother bringing him home tonight ;-)
-
Can we send him back? I thought we had an obligation to buy?
-
If he plays a certain number of games. But I think he has the craft and creativity we are really short of in the squad in general. It’s odd how his career has started here, but I don’t think there’s a chance a player comes here if Unai isn’t very aware of what they can do.
-
Footballers fortunes can change quickly. Needs a start during the week. Barkley getting a few cameos at 10 recently and doing ok isn't great news for Elliot. Id like to see him in Guessands spot on Thurs.
-
Perosnally - given the FFP stuff - I would send him back at the earliest opportunity. If were spending 35-40m we need it to get a player we need to be sure as we cant afford mis-steps.
Emery clearly doesnt fancy him - and only sees him as a 10. Theres at least 4 players ahead of him in that role so we may as well not bother bringing him home tonight ;-)
Me too. I've never been fully convinced by him anyway but was grateful to see him given our summer business.
But if the deal is as reported I would not in any way risk triggering it.
-
The summer signings / loans look like mistakes right now don’t they. If we really have agreed to this deal it’s pretty crap.
-
Footballers fortunes can change quickly. Needs a start during the week. Barkley getting a few cameos at 10 recently and doing ok isn't great news for Elliot. Id like to see him in Guessands spot on Thurs.
Not only Barkley but Buendia and Tielemans likely back in training this week, so not sure where that leaves Elliott. Overall though we need to carry more of a goal threat so I'd prefer him to Guessand.
-
The summer signings / loans look like mistakes right now don’t they. If we really have agreed to this deal it’s pretty crap.
They looked crap at the time. It didn't take hindsight to take a dim view of our summer dealings under Monchi's supervision. His dealings as a whole were terrible and that's why he's been moved on. Lindelof and Sancho two appalling wastes of money and Guessand a terribly scouted rip off deal that Crystal Palace steered clear of when they heard of the costs involved for a player in his mid 20's who has never done anything but for one season.
-
Independent reporting the 10 game trigger. Which all makes sense to me. We'll see more of him soon enough and by my reckoning he'll make a big difference.
-
Funny how we all dismissed the clause til recently!
If true, I guess it makes sense that Emery gets him up to speed in training first to understand his methods.
Otherwise, he risks "wasting" the 10 opportunities he has to run the rule over Elliott before making a decision to buy or not.
-
Independent reporting the 10 game trigger. Which all makes sense to me. We'll see more of him soon enough and by my reckoning he'll make a big difference.
What’s the context of the report? I.e. we don’t want to trigger a permanent transfer or that we want to delay for PSR?
-
They are just commenting that there is 10 but we haven't hit it yet, with a comment from Emery that he is more a 10 or needs to learn how to play right side like McGinn (the latter is strange as that was his position for England and Liverpool but....). I still expect him to get matches leading up to Jan though although it depends who might leave and who might come in with our new recruitmant master.
-
Thanks. It’s an odd one, but frankly he’s a very talented player and our general attacking play hasn’t fired. We need his craft.
-
Harvey Elliott was player of tournament for the U21's in the Euros this summer. I saw him play and he was excellent, plus he scored in the final which England beat Germany 3-2. I find it really odd that he can't even make our bench??
-
Harvey Elliott was player of tournament for the U21's in the Euros this summer. I saw him play and he was excellent, plus he scored in the final which England beat Germany 3-2. I find it really odd that he can't even make our bench??
He's only not been on the bench once and that may have been through an injury.
-
Harvey Elliott was player of tournament for the U21's in the Euros this summer. I saw him play and he was excellent, plus he scored in the final which England beat Germany 3-2. I find it really odd that he can't even make our bench??
He's only not been on the bench once and that may have been through an injury.
If that was ManCiteh, probably not chosen because he was definitely not getting picked for the next match so give the space to someone who was.
-
They are just commenting that there is 10 but we haven't hit it yet, with a comment from Emery that he is more a 10 or needs to learn how to play right side like McGinn (the latter is strange as that was his position for England and Liverpool but....). I still expect him to get matches leading up to Jan though although it depends who might leave and who might come in with our new recruitmant master.
Our medical team are probably working on increasing the size of Harveys arse before Unai will put him in the McGinn role. Could take months/years.
Just a thought.
-
McGinn has defied with gusto the maxim that it's hard to get by when your arse is the size of a small country. In fact, it's very much the opposite. His new career-securing contract depends on the strength of his gluteus maximus. So swivel, Mr Hannon, you Enniskillen-Red.
-
Harvey Elliott was player of tournament for the U21's in the Euros this summer. I saw him play and he was excellent, plus he scored in the final which England beat Germany 3-2. I find it really odd that he can't even make our bench??
U21s is underage football. While Eliot might shine at that level he might be finding the physical demands of the PL a bit too much. He does get knocked off the ball.too easily for my liking
-
Harvey Elliott was player of tournament for the U21's in the Euros this summer. I saw him play and he was excellent, plus he scored in the final which England beat Germany 3-2. I find it really odd that he can't even make our bench??
U21s is underage football. While Eliot might shine at that level he might be finding the physical demands of the PL a bit too much. He does get knocked off the ball.too easily for my liking
Not as much as Buendia used to; he'll deal with that.
-
Harvey Elliott was player of tournament for the U21's in the Euros this summer. I saw him play and he was excellent, plus he scored in the final which England beat Germany 3-2. I find it really odd that he can't even make our bench??
U21s is underage football. While Eliot might shine at that level he might be finding the physical demands of the PL a bit too much. He does get knocked off the ball.too easily for my liking
Not as much as Buendia used to; he'll deal with that.
Probably true, but we already own Buendia whereas we'd need to find £30m to secure Elliot. Maybe selling Buendia, when his stock value is high, is an option but I don't think we need both players.
-
Elliott has played well enough for Liverpool to show he can compete at the top level. I’m hoping he gets an opportunity soon, otherwise it’s been a complete waste for everyone involved.
-
Appearances for Plo-p in the last 3 seasons were 46, 53 and 28. He's hardly a pup.
Get him game time, starting on Thursday.
-
You get 23 year old's playing in the U21 tournament. I get that it's underage, but they're not 15. If you win player of the tournament in that then you're no mug, and as mentioned, he's played a half decent amount for Liverpool. I hope he gets the chance, maybe in December when Guessand is off.
-
Five more subs in a routine Europa league group stage game and he is once more unused.
I don't quite think it's going to happen for him here and looks a cert now he'll go back in January.
Think a part of that is Olabe coming in and already identifying an alternative target much more to Unai's liking.
-
Yep it’s looking quite pointed now.
-
Harvey Elliott was player of tournament for the U21's in the Euros this summer. I saw him play and he was excellent, plus he scored in the final which England beat Germany 3-2. I find it really odd that he can't even make our bench??
U21s is underage football. While Eliot might shine at that level he might be finding the physical demands of the PL a bit too much. He does get knocked off the ball.too easily for my liking
Made over 140 appearances for Liverpool. His physicality is not an issue.
-
Yep. He's not playing those 10 appearances and I reckon it's already been agreed with Liverpool that he's going back early Jan.
-
Harvey Elliott was player of tournament for the U21's in the Euros this summer. I saw him play and he was excellent, plus he scored in the final which England beat Germany 3-2. I find it really odd that he can't even make our bench??
U21s is underage football. While Eliot might shine at that level he might be finding the physical demands of the PL a bit too much. He does get knocked off the ball.too easily for my liking
Made over 140 appearances for Liverpool. His physicality is not an issue.
They played in a very different way to how we do though.
-
I hope he's smoking and eating kebabs at training because I'd be wondering if I was in the right profession watching Guessand play ahead of me.
-
Drinking sausage roll milkshakes.
Even then I'd give him the nod over EG, personally.
-
More chance of Harvey Smith playing for us. Actually, more chance of Sanyo Sanmar playing for us.
-
One for the kids there.
-
Harvey Elliott was player of tournament for the U21's in the Euros this summer. I saw him play and he was excellent, plus he scored in the final which England beat Germany 3-2. I find it really odd that he can't even make our bench??
U21s is underage football. While Eliot might shine at that level he might be finding the physical demands of the PL a bit too much. He does get knocked off the ball.too easily for my liking
Made over 140 appearances for Liverpool. His physicality is not an issue.
They played in a very different way to how we do though.
But what's that got do with him struggling with the physical demands of the PL? You don't play over 140 times for Liverpool if you can't cope physically.
-
Situation has gone from being a bit odd to blatant now - Emery clearly isn’t convinced and we don’t want to trigger the ten games and have to buy him.
-
Drinking sausage roll milkshakes.
Even then I'd give him the nod over EG, personally.
They were selling these in Greggs Newcastle the other week when I was up there.
-
Situation has gone from being a bit odd to blatant now - Emery clearly isn’t convinced and we don’t want to trigger the ten games and have to buy him.
Not sure how he can tell from the limited minutes he’s played?
-
Situation has gone from being a bit odd to blatant now - Emery clearly isn’t convinced and we don’t want to trigger the ten games and have to buy him.
Not sure how he can tell from the limited minutes he’s played?
I think it’s more a case that he just isn’t needed. He is no better than any midfielder we already have.
-
What was the fucking point in this whole deal?
-
Situation has gone from being a bit odd to blatant now - Emery clearly isn’t convinced and we don’t want to trigger the ten games and have to buy him.
Not sure how he can tell from the limited minutes he’s played?
I think it’s more a case that he just isn’t needed. He is no better than any midfielder we already have.
He can't be any worse than Guessand, sorry. Player does seem to be caught in a bit of a power play.
-
Let’s face it, if he can’t get minutes against an Israeli pub team, he never will. Let the poor bloke go back to Liverpool, or somewhere who’ll play him. Pointless signing.
-
Situation has gone from being a bit odd to blatant now - Emery clearly isn’t convinced and we don’t want to trigger the ten games and have to buy him.
Not sure how he can tell from the limited minutes he’s played?
I think it’s more a case that he just isn’t needed. He is no better than any midfielder we already have.
He can't be any worse than Guessand, sorry. Player does seem to be caught in a bit of a power play.
I guess he’s crap at right midfield and can’t be trusted do what Emery wants him to do.
He’s behind Roger’s and Buendia in the pecking order. I presume he was signed in this role bit little Emi sealed his place ahead of him.
-
It feels like he is currently our 3rd choice on the right and in the Number 10 role.
-
We're wasting our bloated wage-bill on non-contributors. Seems a bit dumb.
-
Situation has gone from being a bit odd to blatant now - Emery clearly isn’t convinced and we don’t want to trigger the ten games and have to buy him.
Not sure how he can tell from the limited minutes he’s played?
I think it’s more a case that he just isn’t needed. He is no better than any midfielder we already have.
He can't be any worse than Guessand, sorry. Player does seem to be caught in a bit of a power play.
I guess he’s crap at right midfield and can’t be trusted do what Emery wants him to do.
He’s behind Roger’s and Buendia in the pecking order. I presume he was signed in this role bit little Emi sealed his place ahead of him.
He's obviously doing something very wrong. Whether he lacks the physicality or tactical discipline or not to play right mid for Emery remains to be seen. It could have been tested in the last two Euro games but instead we have George Weah's cousin there instead stinking it out.
-
Situation has gone from being a bit odd to blatant now - Emery clearly isn’t convinced and we don’t want to trigger the ten games and have to buy him.
Not sure how he can tell from the limited minutes he’s played?
He started the Fulham game when we were generally abysmal and was hooked at half time. That says it all from a manager who very rarely makes half time changes unless it is an injury.
Same happened to Garcia v Forest in early April and I don't think he's played a single minute for us since?
So Unai clearly saw something tactically he didn't like at all from Elliott and probably throught it is going to be a struggle to get him up to speed so would rather just go with Rogers/Buendia who know the system inside out.
Also Olabe coming in and already identifying targets for January and someone of similar profile to Elliott has I'm sure been suggested already.
-
What was the fucking point in this whole deal?
It’s very odd, but I do think we are not great going forward at the moment. We score some great goals, but we are not creating a steady flow of great chances. That isn’t sustainable. There is more than enough scope to give Elliott a chance and I think we’re making a mistake.
-
What was the fucking point in this whole deal?
It’s very odd, but I do think we are not great going forward at the moment. We score some great goals, but we are not creating a steady flow of great chances. That isn’t sustainable. There is more than enough scope to give Elliott a chance and I think we’re making a mistake.
Those 10 appearances will be kept back in case of emergency but we clearly have no intention whatsoever to spunk our remaining budget on him.
-
Elliott didn't look at all happy when the subs were made and he wasn't one of them, which is understandable. You do start to wonder if this was a Monchi deal UE wasn't quite on board with, which is less understandable.
-
I've said for a while if I was a player now I'd never sign on one of these kind of deals, you're such a hostage to it, I do feel for him a bit.
-
This might sound daft but does the player know the details of the deal between the clubs? Or do they just get the info about what they're being paid, which training ground they need to turn up at etc.
-
Can we send him back in January, hypothetically?
-
I doubt it.
-
Monchi shit the bed on this one. These are the kind of dumb and ill thought out deals, like the Sancho one, that you deserve getting the sack for. Guessand was a poorly scouted gamble, the 2 loans were just a stupid panicky deadline day waste of wages.
-
You do start to wonder if this was a Monchi deal UE wasn't quite on board with...
And yet, all the commentary about the management set-up at Villa is that they (Emery, Vidagny and - previously - Monchi) all talk with each other and have a joint decision-making approach. I can't believe that Emery was somehow blindsided on this deal.
-
Whoever said above that they are waiting until such a point in the season when injuries kick in before playing him - that feels right to me. I honestly don't know if he's any good, but the deal we seem to have struck with Liverpool, and our need to be relatively frugal (still no sign of that Man City ruling eh, nah), means that we can't be taking a £40m risk. It's shit for the player and I do feel sorry for him in that regard.
-
I read somewhere that Paqueta is unhappy again at West Ham so is it possible that could be back on in January and therefore we need to cut bait with Elliot and not trigger the obligation to buy. Elliot was the less desired alternative in the summer. Just a theory
-
He was unhappy but then he scored on Sunday and West Ham won and he was happy again, the fickle, skilful, fat fvck.
-
I still am more inclined to believe the story that the issue is triggering the obligation in this set of SCR numbers. I guess we'll know come the 2nd half of December. The alternative is that Unai didn't want him in the first place (which I don't buy) or he's turned out to be more useless than Unai thought (which would surprise me).
-
Well Monchi was removed/departed v quickly after the deadline passed so somebody wasn’t happy with the business!
-
I still am more inclined to believe the story that the issue is triggering the obligation in this set of SCR numbers. I guess we'll know come the 2nd half of December. The alternative is that Unai didn't want him in the first place (which I don't buy) or he's turned out to be more useless than Unai thought (which would surprise me).
Agree with this. I think we'll start seeing more of him in December
-
Fully expecting the ‘My Villa Nightmare’ story in the press once he goes home.
-
I wouldn’t blame him.
-
I still am more inclined to believe the story that the issue is triggering the obligation in this set of SCR numbers. I guess we'll know come the 2nd half of December. The alternative is that Unai didn't want him in the first place (which I don't buy) or he's turned out to be more useless than Unai thought (which would surprise me).
Agree with this. I think we'll start seeing more of him in December
I think this too, and I think Monchi got a bollocking for not realising.
-
I think the Buendia Renaissance was unexpected. That, together with Emery clearly not being convinced, means it would be madness to let the £35m deal kick in.
It's awful for the player but it would make sense for Villa to negotiate with Liverpool to send him back at Christmas with us making some sort of payment to cover part of the costs.
-
Even more so with Oli’s and Guessand’s form.
-
If we do want to use him but can't because of this "play ten games as get screwed for UEFA FSR" rumour, I don't really see why Elliott agreed to this.
22 years old, keen to leave one of the biggest clubs in the world just to get more time on the pitch, plenty of decent clubs keen to sign him. Was our pitch to him that he should join us to barely be used at all for the first half of the season just to help our books work out?
If this whole structure is simply for the benefit of our accountancy periods, why didn't everyone agree to a half season loan and we can look at signing him in January and use him as we want for the first half of the season?
The only argument that I can think of is because Liverpool might want more of a guarantee of a pre-agreed sale - but what they now have is an asset who is losing value by sitting on our bench, still with no guarantee that we buy him.
-
If we do want to use him but can't because of this "play ten games as get screwed for UEFA FSR" rumour, I don't really see why Elliott agreed to this.
22 years old, keen to leave one of the biggest clubs in the world just to get more time on the pitch, plenty of decent clubs keen to sign him. Was our pitch to him that he should join us to barely be used at all for the first half of the season just to help our books work out?
If this whole structure is simply for the benefit of our accountancy periods, why didn't everyone agree to a half season loan and we can look at signing him in January and use him as we want for the first half of the season?
The only argument that I can think of is because Liverpool might want more of a guarantee of a pre-agreed sale - but what they now have is an asset who is losing value by sitting on our bench, still with no guarantee that we buy him.
This is the only upside of the deal so far.
-
I honestly think that the UEFA rule of effectively having the value hit the books when it is first triggered was either forgotten about, or was deemed not an issue with us thinking we would get a fee from Martinez to Manure to cover it. As soon as we didn't give ourselves the wriggle room we were then stuck with having to wait out Elliotts 10 games until we can do some business in Jan to cover it.
-
I honestly think that the UEFA rule of effectively having the value hit the books when it is first triggered was either forgotten about, or was deemed not an issue with us thinking we would get a fee from Martinez to Manure to cover it. As soon as we didn't give ourselves the wriggle room we were then stuck with having to wait out Elliotts 10 games until we can do some business in Jan to cover it.
That's a good theory - but surely any fee for Martinez was immediately planned to be spent on Lammens or similar?
-
Liverp
If we do want to use him but can't because of this "play ten games as get screwed for UEFA FSR" rumour, I don't really see why Elliott agreed to this.
22 years old, keen to leave one of the biggest clubs in the world just to get more time on the pitch, plenty of decent clubs keen to sign him. Was our pitch to him that he should join us to barely be used at all for the first half of the season just to help our books work out?
If this whole structure is simply for the benefit of our accountancy periods, why didn't everyone agree to a half season loan and we can look at signing him in January and use him as we want for the first half of the season?
The only argument that I can think of is because Liverpool might want more of a guarantee of a pre-agreed sale - but what they now have is an asset who is losing value by sitting on our bench, still with no guarantee that we buy him.
I think you answered your own question; Liverpool wanted a sale rather than loan. We needed to delay paying and they didn't want to strengthen us without being paid. Hence 10 appearances.
I suspect we will see more of him in the coming weeks. He's played 5 games so far, so 5 left until the trigger point. He's just over the halfway point this week (joined 1st September, so he's 2 months and 6 days into a 4 month period.)
There have been 10 games since he joined us, and there are 11 games left this year.
-
I honestly think that the UEFA rule of effectively having the value hit the books when it is first triggered was either forgotten about, or was deemed not an issue with us thinking we would get a fee from Martinez to Manure to cover it. As soon as we didn't give ourselves the wriggle room we were then stuck with having to wait out Elliotts 10 games until we can do some business in Jan to cover it.
That's a good theory - but surely any fee for Martinez was immediately planned to be spent on Lammens or similar?
Depends when the accounting period took effect. Perhaps we were going to stagger the Lammens fee, have a lot of add-ons, and pay less than we were getting in.
-
My guess would be Monchi was so desperate to get it over the line after such a poor window he agreed a v poor deal at the last minute which we couldn’t afford.
-
I think you answered your own question; Liverpool wanted a sale rather than loan. We needed to delay paying and they didn't want to strengthen us without being paid. Hence 10 appearances.
But if we're deliberately not playing him, meaning he has no time to impress, and in the meantime other players make their own case for that role - we could decide that we're not going to get to ten matches.
So Liverpool don't get paid, and they have an unhappy player who is probably worth a lot less than he was if they had just sold him to someone last summer.
-
I honestly think that the UEFA rule of effectively having the value hit the books when it is first triggered was either forgotten about, or was deemed not an issue with us thinking we would get a fee from Martinez to Manure to cover it. As soon as we didn't give ourselves the wriggle room we were then stuck with having to wait out Elliotts 10 games until we can do some business in Jan to cover it.
That's a good theory - but surely any fee for Martinez was immediately planned to be spent on Lammens or similar?
Depends when the accounting period took effect. Perhaps we were going to stagger the Lammens fee, have a lot of add-ons, and pay less than we were getting in.
Not for this it doesn't - this is the UEFA "positive transfer balance" thing. So if we agree to sell Martinez and then spend a big chunk of it on Lammens then it doesn't matter whether we give them £1m per season for the next 20 years or the whole lot in one go. It's still the value of the transfer for both in and out.
-
I still am more inclined to believe the story that the issue is triggering the obligation in this set of SCR numbers. I guess we'll know come the 2nd half of December. The alternative is that Unai didn't want him in the first place (which I don't buy) or he's turned out to be more useless than Unai thought (which would surprise me).
Agree with this. I think we'll start seeing more of him in December
Yes, he is getting some stilts for Christmas.
-
I think you answered your own question; Liverpool wanted a sale rather than loan. We needed to delay paying and they didn't want to strengthen us without being paid. Hence 10 appearances.
But if we're deliberately not playing him, meaning he has no time to impress, and in the meantime other players make their own case for that role - we could decide that we're not going to get to ten matches.
So Liverpool don't get paid, and they have an unhappy player who is probably worth a lot less than he was if they had just sold him to someone last summer.
Yes and if that is the case it’s hardly going to paint us in a positive light with other clubs or players. At the very least it’ll make them think twice.
-
I've said for a while if I was a player now I'd never sign on one of these kind of deals, you're such a hostage to it, I do feel for him a bit.
Yeah, I realise professional football is a brutal business but he is being treated really badly here. At the other end of the scale Dobbin and the PSR pawns, we aren't doing right by them either.
-
I think you answered your own question; Liverpool wanted a sale rather than loan. We needed to delay paying and they didn't want to strengthen us without being paid. Hence 10 appearances.
But if we're deliberately not playing him, meaning he has no time to impress, and in the meantime other players make their own case for that role - we could decide that we're not going to get to ten matches.
So Liverpool don't get paid, and they have an unhappy player who is probably worth a lot less than he was if they had just sold him to someone last summer.
Yes and if that is the case it’s hardly going to paint us in a positive light with other clubs or players. At the very least it’ll make them think twice.
But the plan is to keep him and for him to be ouir player. He doesn't need to impress on the pitch, he's done that and all he needs to do is continue working hard in training, adapting and we'll be fine financially when we trigger it in January.
-
That would seem slightly more plausible if he had played even a bit more.
-
Time will tell but with Guessand getting plenty of game time and looking clueless, it's telling that Elliott is not getting a sniff.
-
I don't want him at 35m. That isn't a reflection on the player, but where we are financially. We need to make a profit again next summer don't we? We have McGinn, we have Buendia. Save the money and find a bloody good centre forward and two bloody good wingers on the cheap.
-
I don't want him at 35m. That isn't a reflection on the player, but where we are financially. We need to make a profit again next summer don't we?
I don't think so - I think the judgement was that future penalties were suspended as long as we were good this summer.
And we were so goody two-shoes this summer that we should be fine as long as the books are alright, and given last years Champions League income, they should be.
The issue next summer is if we choose to spend big, it could cause us future problems without the extra European income to keep parity with that future spending.
-
Thanks for clarifying. I was on an Old Trafford rage induced sabbatical this summer, so completely out of the loop on it.
-
I don't want him at 35m. That isn't a reflection on the player, but where we are financially. We need to make a profit again next summer don't we? We have McGinn, we have Buendia. Save the money and find a bloody good centre forward and two bloody good wingers on the cheap.
To state the obvious, Buendia is 29 next month and McGinn is 31. It's an area we need to strengthen anyway with a younger option. Who's to say Buendia's lazarus like resurgence isn't going to be temporary.
The fact Emery has only given Elliot 168mins in total on the pitch so far, and a time we are struggling to create chances, suggests there's a bit more to it that just poor performances. That's with Guessand particularly and in truth Sancho stinking it out in that time. The way Emery singled him out after the Sunderland game was very odd. Hooked at half time v Fulham in the next game and not a sniff since.
-
I don't want him at 35m. That isn't a reflection on the player, but where we are financially. We need to make a profit again next summer don't we? We have McGinn, we have Buendia. Save the money and find a bloody good centre forward and two bloody good wingers on the cheap.
We've got, not we have.
-
Think it's more Olabe coming in and identifying a player that Unai probably likes the look of.
We'll sign that player in January, send Elliott back and save ourselves 15-20m in the process I bet.
Balls to all that if UE still wants Paqueta, do not want that guy at all and Unai needs to be told quietly to drop any thought as he is completely the wrong profile for us e.g late 20s, very high wages. Would be another Coutinho imo.
-
I think the unexpected form of Guessand has made us think twice on this as a permanent deal.
-
I don't want him at 35m. That isn't a reflection on the player, but where we are financially. We need to make a profit again next summer don't we? We have McGinn, we have Buendia. Save the money and find a bloody good centre forward and two bloody good wingers on the cheap.
To state the obvious, Buendia is 29 next month and McGinn is 31. It's an area we need to strengthen anyway with a younger option. Who's to say Buendia's lazarus like resurgence isn't going to be temporary.
The fact Emery has only given Elliot 168mins in total on the pitch so far, and a time we are struggling to create chances, suggests there's a bit more to it that just poor performances. That's with Guessand particularly and in truth Sancho stinking it out in that time. The way Emery singled him out after the Sunderland game was very odd. Hooked at half time v Fulham in the next game and not a sniff since.
The whole squad is getting on and that is a problem we'll have to address over the next couple of years, but at least they can actually play football to the standard that we need. Right now our centre forward looks finished and our new right winger looks shit, so if that doesn't get sorted we are fucked.
Do that first, then start trying to address the fact that half the squad seems to be 28.
-
If this 10 game thing is true, would it still not have been an idea to give him a few starts in matches against the likes of our last two European opponents the give him some competitive game time?
-
Like I said, maybe Guessand going to AFCON will mean he gets a chance. Although Emery will probably play Lindelof there before him.
-
I don't want him at 35m. That isn't a reflection on the player, but where we are financially. We need to make a profit again next summer don't we? We have McGinn, we have Buendia. Save the money and find a bloody good centre forward and two bloody good wingers on the cheap.
We've got, not we have.
I just don't think he understands.
-
I honestly think that the UEFA rule of effectively having the value hit the books when it is first triggered was either forgotten about, or was deemed not an issue with us thinking we would get a fee from Martinez to Manure to cover it. As soon as we didn't give ourselves the wriggle room we were then stuck with having to wait out Elliotts 10 games until we can do some business in Jan to cover it.
Elliott was part of the ‘Martinez hasn’t gone after all’ panic on the last day.
-
Though we'd been linked with him a good while before that.
-
Elliot ahead of Asensio seemed to be the call, the correct one in my view, but suspect Emery is a bit sour about it. Even if Elliot was really struggling to settle those two pub teams we have just played would have been ideal games to settle him in.
-
I think it is more likely he is not getting on with Emery, than any payment clause. Emery called him out for not following instructions on his debut, and he has not been seen much since. Might just be a personality clash.
Its a shame, as I think he is good player.
-
I think it is more likely he is not getting on with Emery, than any payment clause. Emery called him out for not following instructions on his debut, and he has not been seen much since. Might just be a personality clash.
Its a shame, as I think he is good player.
I’m sorry but thats very much reaching. If the 10
Game clause is real and we have no reason to suspect not then it’s a quite easy explanation as to why we’ve not seen him much and of course Emerys insistence on adaptation.
-
Us going in for Paqueta despite it impacting both our wage ceiling signifcantly and net transfer balance is an even bigger head-scratcher for me. We have one of the oldest squads in the league, he would make it older. Felt like Gregory buying Steve Stone, a total misuse of finite resources.
-
I think it is more likely he is not getting on with Emery, than any payment clause. Emery called him out for not following instructions on his debut, and he has not been seen much since. Might just be a personality clash.
Its a shame, as I think he is good player.
I’m sorry but thats very much reaching. If the 10
Game clause is real and we have no reason to suspect not then it’s a quite easy explanation as to why we’ve not seen him much and of course Emerys insistence on adaptation.
The ten game clause appears to be real, it's whether we're deliberately avoiding playing him to either not get to ten games and obviate the obligation or to push the tenth game into a new accounting period that appears to be the reach in my mind.
Coming on to help see out the last five minutes against Feyenoord and not seeing another minute for the next two months would suggest that Emery not wanting to use him is the easier explanation.
-
Could it be 10 league games and he can fill his boots in other competitions? He has made the bench for recent European games, but with Barkley now in that squad and Buendia back, he's also struggling to get ahead of competitors for game-time, regardless of any clause?
-
Could it be 10 league games and he can fill his boots in other competitions? He has made the bench for recent European games, but with Barkley now in that squad and Buendia back, he's also struggling to get ahead of competitors for game-time, regardless of any clause?
Then the fact that he didn't appear in the last two European games would be further evidence that Emery just doesn't want to use him rather than any talk of "trying not to hit ten games".
-
Hypothetically, lets agree we don’t want him.
If you were Liverpool would you rip up the loan deal so you could sell in January and protect the asset’s value or would you leave him unplayed rotting at villa, thankful that we are covering his wages?
Maybe I’ve watched too much traitors, but I can’t see how this will play out. Right now, no one is winning.
-
I guess in Jan we’ll either alter the agreement - to drop the composary purchase or send him back
-
Right now, no one is winning.
That was my original point - if (and I don't think it is) this is all around playing ten matches and our plan was always to use him only in the second half of the season, I don't see why either he or Liverpool would have agreed to that. Rather than just doing the same deal with someone who wasn't going to piss them about.
And if that wasn't our plan and the "ten games" issue only came to light later then that's a pretty spectacular screw-up by our recruitment guys.
-
If he was at the Redscouse I reckon he'd be seeing more game time there than he has here.
And that's with the squad they have.
Something's not right.
-
If he was at the Redscouse I reckon he'd be seeing more game time there than he has here.
And that's with the squad they have.
Something's not right.
Not this season he wouldn’t. Their summer spree is why he had to leave
-
Yeah but they've all been shite. He would have got regular cameos unlike at Villa. Maybe the step-up to a bigger club has been too much for him.
-
He's hardly getting a kick - in any competition - wonder if Unai doesn't rate his training
-
in comparison, Guessand must be a hero in training
-
in comparison, Guessand must be a hero in training
He brings in his freshly baked croissants every morning.
-
Not even made the bench again today. Bizarre.
-
It's a ridiculous clause that isn't doing anyone any favours. We can't risk get a proper look at him in games to decide if we're buying, it's not enough games to be sure, he's not playing any football, so it isn't good for him, and it's doing his value to Liverpool no good either.
-
Not even made the bench again today. Bizarre.
I don’t think it’s that bizarre to be honest. We’re up against it financially, we have good players in his position that we’ve already paid for, we have more pressing needs in other positions that we may be able to address if we don’t buy him.
-
It can’t just be the clause. There’s something awry there.
-
It can’t just be the clause. There’s something awry there.
I think it’s the most credible/plausible explanation.
-
We need calm heads for this one.I hope there is a sanity clause.
-
It’s not a great look to be honest.
-
Not in the squad again for Bournemouth. I think now we will somehow cancel the Elliott deal in January. He’s a very good player so I just don’t get why Emery just ignores him. It’s not like we took a punt on a league 2 player that hasn’t worked out. He just came off a brilliant U21 tournament. Very disappointed by this as I thought he could do something for us and was really the only bright part of a terrible summer window.
-
It can’t just be the clause. There’s something awry there.
I think it’s the most credible/plausible explanation.
That’s definitely part of it. I wonder how fit he is if he’s basically not playing football games.
-
If we have no interest in making it permanent then hopefully he goes back in Jan and he can crack on with his career.
-
Denholm Elliott has more chance of playing than this bloke.
-
Paul Elliott has more chance and he's 61.
-
If we have no interest in making it permanent then hopefully he goes back in Jan and he can crack on with his career.
Which I think will be a decent one for someone else leaving us scratching our head why we didn’t try to make it work. Feels to me that Emery wanted Paqueta and ended up with Elliott and he isn’t what Emery wanted.
-
ET’s best friend Elliott has more chance of playing for us than Harvey Elliott
-
ET’s best friend Elliott has more chance of playing for us than Harvey Elliott
Stop thief!
Maybe it's Elliot that needs to phone home this time.
-
ET’s best friend Elliott has more chance of playing for us than Harvey Elliott
Stop thief!
Maybe it's Elliot that needs to phone home this time.
(https://i.ibb.co/hF05PBfv/IMG-8296.jpg) (https://ibb.co/hF05PBfv)
-
Paul Elliott has more chance and he's 61.
and Deano finished him.
-
Denholm Elliott has more chance of playing than this bloke.
I wish he was trading places with Guessand.
-
Actually feel sorry for him now on a human level.
-
I think Emery has made the pragmatic decision that he's not worth £35m considering the other options in that role and the needs of the squad. He's gone in January if he can be.
-
Watching Emi today it’s also possible he’s eliminated the need for Elliott in that role. I’d still have him in the squad over Guessand.
-
I think it's his hair. And if it is, frankly, I agree.
-
The unexpected Buendia renaissance means we don’t need Elliot and can use the money elsewhere, I think it’s that simple.
-
I read a report that they’re targeting a striker in January. Assume they’ll use this towards that instead.
-
It must be a mix of the Buendia effect and the lack of goals from our only striker and not needing Elliott. A shame but when the money is so tight, our needs must come first and not the player or Liverpool.
-
Looks a very, very strange signing at the moment. Why would we agree to the rather stringent obligation to buy if he plays more than 10 games clause unless we’d already decided we’re want him. But then, why want him that much than the moment he turns up we lose all interest?
Very, very strange
-
The unexpected Buendia renaissance means we don’t need Elliot and can use the money elsewhere, I think it’s that simple.
Yep. It's the right decision.
-
I wonder if we intended to sell Buendia, then his form has taken us all by surprise. He had a shocking injury and even before that, there’s always been that element of doubt with his ability at the top end of this league. I’m convinced he’s played himself into the role we intended for Elliott.
-
I think it's his hair. And if it is, frankly, I agree.
I thought the same when Rigadon said 'there's something awry'.
-
Once again, BV, we share the same page on the important issues.
-
I wonder if we intended to sell Buendia, then his form has taken us all by surprise. He had a shocking injury and even before that, there’s always been that element of doubt with his ability at the top end of this league. I’m convinced he’s played himself into the role we intended for Elliott.
Yep, i think that's exactly what's happening. What's more interesting though is Barkley being used there as well, to the point that I don't think Emery wants Elliott to play that role at all (assuming he wanted him and plans to keep him around). I think we're trying to turn him into an alternative/replacement for McGinn, in the same way that we're clearly doing with Bogarde to replace Kamara at some point. I hope it's something like that at least because that sort of longer term thinking is something I've wanted to see from us for a very long time.
-
I think it's his hair. And if it is, frankly, I agree.
I thought the same when Rigadon said 'there's something awry'.
I hate the word 'awry', I just can't read it to sound as it's supposed to. And for that reason, I completely agree.
-
I wonder if it’s financial, maybe he makes enough appearances before the new year,with out the obligation to buy kicking in.
-
It’s not a great look to be honest.
Maybe he will get some straighteners for Christmas.
-
I think its all down to the very unwelcome hug that Elliott forced on UE at their first meeting in the gym, UE looked appalled, as well he should have. A firm handshake, eye contact and a modest smile, with possibly a reverential bow and he'd be getting game time. He's only himself to blame really.
-
I think it's his hair. And if it is, frankly, I agree.
I thought the same when Rigadon said 'there's something awry'.
I go back to my statement a few weeks back that a player in his position needs to go 'short back and sides' as it's football shorthand for 'I mean business'.
-
Could be we're trying to avoid paying the £35m in this calendar year - UEFA's PSR/SQR rules run 1 Jan-31Dec, so if we can flip it to next year then that might help the financials?
Alternatively - with EmiB, Bogey, Onana and Barkley putting in top performances, and Meatball, Rogers, Kamara and now Tielemans doing the business, do we really need Elliott?
Would we be better off cancelling his loan in Jan and using the £35m to find somebody to provide Ollie with genuine competition up front?
-
I feel a bit sorry for the lad, he's a fine player and can't have expected to be left on the sidelines like this. Someone seems to have screwed up, and he's paying the price.
Obviously he's still earning flipping great wodges of cash, which should soften the blow, but still. It's hardly doing his career any good.
-
Could be we're trying to avoid paying the £35m in this calendar year - UEFA's PSR/SQR rules run 1 Jan-31Dec, so if we can flip it to next year then that might help the financials?
That's the conspiracy theory, but why would Elliott or Liverpool agree for him to take that five month chunk out of his career and agree to that being the plan? Rather than just signing for someone who wants him and and will play him.
-
Not sure why but after his first few appearances I just couldn't imagine him in our team and as our form has improved that opinion has been reinforced. Feels like the wrong timing or something.
-
I feel a bit sorry for the lad, he's a fine player and can't have expected to be left on the sidelines like this. Someone seems to have screwed up, and he's paying the price.
Obviously he's still earning flipping great wodges of cash, which should soften the blow, but still. It's hardly doing his career any good.
Yup, don't think we've covered ourselves in glory here.
-
Could be we're trying to avoid paying the £35m in this calendar year - UEFA's PSR/SQR rules run 1 Jan-31Dec, so if we can flip it to next year then that might help the financials?
That's the conspiracy theory, but why would Elliott or Liverpool agree for him to take that five month chunk out of his career and agree to that being the plan? Rather than just signing for someone who wants him and and will play him.
Another potential Monchi fuckup with rules? The same as when we bought so many players last January, got rid of others on loan and sale and then realised we couldn't register all the new ones for Europe.
-
That definitely looks like a trend to me, too.
-
I think he'll be fine, will make some key contributions and we'll all be saying how Emery has worked wonders again.
-
Could be we're trying to avoid paying the £35m in this calendar year - UEFA's PSR/SQR rules run 1 Jan-31Dec, so if we can flip it to next year then that might help the financials?
That's the conspiracy theory, but why would Elliott or Liverpool agree for him to take that five month chunk out of his career and agree to that being the plan? Rather than just signing for someone who wants him and and will play him.
Another potential Monchi fuckup with rules? The same as when we bought so many players last January, got rid of others on loan and sale and then realised we couldn't register all the new ones for Europe.
It feels too amateurish for it to be true, but I definitely don't think it can be ruled out.
-
Got to think he'll come into the reckoning at some stage and should help second half of the season. Then he adds more options to what we already have.
-
It feels too amateurish for it to be true, but I definitely don't think it can be ruled out.
It does, and yet over time, amateurism is becoming an increasingly plausible explanation for a number of transfer-related issues - in this case, the Malen registration mess and the Elliot situation. But there are other cases where our actions have, in a relative information vacuum, looked tinged at the time with the kind of genius that may turn out to be rooted in cluelessness. The protracted Luiz deal, for example, and the surprise Diaby exit – even though you couldn't really criticise the deals in themselves. Then there was the Ramsey exit, which never looked clever (though necessary).
-
It feels too amateurish for it to be true, but I definitely don't think it can be ruled out.
It does, and yet over time, amateurism is becoming an increasingly plausible explanation for a number of transfer-related issues - in this case, the Malen registration mess and the Elliot situation. But there are other cases where our actions have, in a relative information vacuum, looked tinged at the time with the kind of genius that may turn out to be rooted in cluelessness. The protracted Luiz deal, for example, and the surprise Diaby exit – even though you couldn't really criticise the deals in themselves. Then there was the Ramsey exit, which never looked clever (though necessary).
…and therefore, part of the reason why Monchi left?
-
I bought the tactical reasons as why he wasn’t featuring until this week, not getting on on Thursday or being in the squad yesterday I’m now fully onboard that we are talking to Liverpool to send him back in January and he was not a signing Unai wanted.
I was happy when we signed him but also wary that he was a bit part player in a team that was on fire.
Not sure what the rules are if he went back as he played minutes for them and us this season, would that stop them sending him straight back out to say Fulham?
-
…and therefore, part of the reason why Monchi left?
It's a very wild, very out there yet tantalising prospect.
It would shine a somewhat different light on that valedictory post-window tweet of Monchi arm in arm with his recruitment team, standing in front of a board with player names on (that [amateurishly?] can actually be deciphered). Portrayed at the time as "these soldiers have been in the trenches for you", was it actually more about "have we done enough to keep him his effing job?".
-
He needs a new agent, for a player that's struggled for game time a move to a team lower down the table would've been the move. Get a full season shining at somewhere like Fulham and then you'd have the big boys back in for you.
-
I think there's every chance he would be shining for us if Buendia hadn't stayed and then hit such a fantastic patch of form. That was unexpected when we signed him.
My guess is the club have simply decided that, as good as Elliot could be, we can spend the money better elsewhere. Possibly a lesson learned from the Maatsen signing.
I think if it were just a bedding-in issue, he would be getting at least some minutes in games.
-
I think there's every chance he would be shining for us if Buendia hadn't stayed and then hit such a fantastic patch of form. That was unexpected when we signed him.
My guess is the club have simply decided that, as good as Elliot could be, we can spend the money better elsewhere. Possibly a lesson learned from the Maatsen signing.
I think if it were just a bedding-in issue, he would be getting at least some minutes in games.
I agree Chris.
-
I don't believe Emery didn't want him, but it's clear now we don't need him. The £35m that was earmarked for him will be better value if it's spent on a striker.
-
I don't believe Emery didn't want him, but it's clear now we don't need him. The £35m that was earmarked for him will be better value if it's spent on a striker.
A hybrid striker/reasonable right back cover for Matty would be ideal.
-
I bought the tactical reasons as why he wasn’t featuring until this week, not getting on on Thursday or being in the squad yesterday I’m now fully onboard that we are talking to Liverpool to send him back in January and he was not a signing Unai wanted.
I was happy when we signed him but also wary that he was a bit part player in a team that was on fire.
Not sure what the rules are if he went back as he played minutes for them and us this season, would that stop them sending him straight back out to say Fulham?
I was happy when we signed him but Buendia seems to have turned into Ortega 1998 World Cup so is amongst key starters. Barkley is bang in form as go to bench option (the last 3 leagues wins he has been brilliant against quality opposition) and other positions he could play are covered by an advanced Youri, Rogers or McGinn.
That's a lot of hardware to get passed at the minute to get a look in.
-
I don't believe Emery didn't want him, but it's clear now we don't need him. The £35m that was earmarked for him will be better value if it's spent on a striker.
A hybrid striker/reasonable right back cover for Matty would be ideal.
Who can play Keeper or Rush Goalie at a push
-
McGinn and Emi can share a position for the next 3-4 years given how we could rotate them.
Is there a youngster coming through to seamlessly replace them?
-
If it is the number of games to trigger the deal that's the problem, it would be better all round (especially for the player) if Elliott was recalled by Liverpool in January and sent somewhere else on loan.
-
If it is the number of games to trigger the deal that's the problem, it would be better all round (especially for the player) if Elliott was recalled by Liverpool in January and sent somewhere else on loan.
Agree there are few teams who would want him - here and abroad.
-
I don't believe Emery didn't want him, but it's clear now we don't need him. The £35m that was earmarked for him will be better value if it's spent on a striker.
A hybrid striker/reasonable right back cover for Matty would be ideal.
Isn’t that covered by Garcia or has he been abducted by Aliens or something?
-
I bought the tactical reasons as why he wasn’t featuring until this week, not getting on on Thursday or being in the squad yesterday I’m now fully onboard that we are talking to Liverpool to send him back in January and he was not a signing Unai wanted.
I was happy when we signed him but also wary that he was a bit part player in a team that was on fire.
Not sure what the rules are if he went back as he played minutes for them and us this season, would that stop them sending him straight back out to say Fulham?
I was happy when we signed him but Buendia seems to have turned into Ortega 1998 World Cup so is amongst key starters. Barkley is bang in form as go to bench option (the last 3 leagues wins he has been brilliant against quality opposition) and other positions he could play are covered by an advanced Youri, Rogers or McGinn.
That's a lot of hardware to get passed at the minute to get a look in.
Software as a Service is where it's at. Harvey needs to pivot his skillset.
-
Trying to break through into one of the best midfields in the PL was never going to be easy. Right now we have every midfielder from SJM to Ross Barkley playing on top of their game. You get a chance, you need to take it.
-
He hasn't really had a chance, though, that's the point. And it seems very likely now that he won't get one.
I was pretty pleased when we signed him, but it seems it's going to be a waste of money.
-
He hasn't really had a chance, though, that's the point. And it seems very likely now that he won't get one.
I was pretty pleased when we signed him, but it seems it's going to be a waste of money.
Players have chances every day - in training - to show what they can bring.
I agree with above post - our midfield, both first choice and even 2nd choice line up, is as good as anything in the league at the moment.
I feel he was bought in as the Buendia replacement and either Emi had no offers or did not want to go contributed to the form he is in at the moment. I dont think anyone would shift him at present.
Certainly from what i have seen Elliot seems a tidy, technical player - not the explosive little workhorse that Emi is
-
I think there's every chance he would be shining for us if Buendia hadn't stayed and then hit such a fantastic patch of form. That was unexpected when we signed him.
My guess is the club have simply decided that, as good as Elliot could be, we can spend the money better elsewhere. Possibly a lesson learned from the Maatsen signing.
I think if it were just a bedding-in issue, he would be getting at least some minutes in games.
Buendia is playing more on the left though. I'm sure his form has come as a welcome surprise. Barkley playing at 10 has also become an option when he was signed as a 6 really as per his Luton form.
It's Guessand that Elliot has been playing second fiddle to or third now that McGinn is playing more on the right again.
RM- McGinn, Guessand, Rogers or Sancho at a push
LM - Buendia, Rogers, Sancho
10 - Rogers, Buendia, Barkley, Tielemans
-
RM- McGinn, Guessand, Rogers or Sancho at a push
LM - Buendia, Rogers, Sancho
10 - Rogers, Buendia, Barkley, Tielemans
Hard to pick him or many other established premier league players over that mix
Unless injured Rogers will play every game so that narrows the odds even more for just 2 places, McGinn you assume the same will play so now it is one from the rest
Tough but great position to be in
-
"Explosive little workhorse", what an expression! Need to work it into my Tinder bio somehow...
-
It’s the modern day version of utility player. See Lillis, M
-
RM- McGinn, Guessand, Rogers or Sancho at a push
LM - Buendia, Rogers, Sancho
10 - Rogers, Buendia, Barkley, Tielemans
Hard to pick him or many other established premier league players over that mix
Unless injured Rogers will play every game so that narrows the odds even more for just 2 places, McGinn you assume the same will play so now it is one from the rest
Tough but great position to be in
Add Malen as an option too. It’s a long list and understandable why we don’t sleepwalk into spending another £35m.
-
RM- McGinn, Guessand, Rogers or Sancho at a push
LM - Buendia, Rogers, Sancho
10 - Rogers, Buendia, Barkley, Tielemans
Hard to pick him or many other established premier league players over that mix
Unless injured Rogers will play every game so that narrows the odds even more for just 2 places, McGinn you assume the same will play so now it is one from the rest
Tough but great position to be in
Add Malen as an option too. It’s a long list and understandable why we don’t sleepwalk into spending another £35m.
It is a long list, but it’s likely to shorten in the next year or two.
There are doubts over Sancho and Guessand.
Barkley is injury prone.
Is Buendia going through a purple patch rather than a permanent upturn?
Rogers might have to be sacrificed on the alter of FFP
There’s only McGinn who you’d put money in being in the team this time next year and he can’t go on forever.
-
Athletic article on the Elliott situation. https://archive.ph/ZLHAa
-
Nothing particularly new, but helpful in outlining the position. If he’s here until the end of the season there’s no way the 10 games won’t be triggered.
-
We're not spending £35m on someone who can't even make the bench.
-
RM- McGinn, Guessand, Rogers or Sancho at a push
LM - Buendia, Rogers, Sancho
10 - Rogers, Buendia, Barkley, Tielemans
Hard to pick him or many other established premier league players over that mix
Unless injured Rogers will play every game so that narrows the odds even more for just 2 places, McGinn you assume the same will play so now it is one from the rest
Tough but great position to be in
Add Malen as an option too. It’s a long list and understandable why we don’t sleepwalk into spending another £35m.
It is a long list, but it’s likely to shorten in the next year or two.
There are doubts over Sancho and Guessand.
Barkley is injury prone.
Is Buendia going through a purple patch rather than a permanent upturn?
Rogers might have to be sacrificed on the alter of FFP
There’s only McGinn who you’d put money in being in the team this time next year and he can’t go on forever.
If Emery can turn Sancho and/or Guessand into top tier PL footballers it might well one of his biggest achievements. Turned around Tielemans but his ability was never really in question and had proved it for Leicester. Sancho has lots of ability and Guessand has heart but don't see either of them making the grade here
That's where I think Elliot could and should have been a better option for us. Don't see us holding onto Rogers post the WC if his form continues. Elliot would be a hedge against that happening too.
-
We're not spending £35m on someone who can't even make the bench.
Well I think that’s it, if he’s stays until the end of the season I just can’t see anyway he’s not hitting the 10 appearances.
-
I reckon he'll play 9. Without the clause I think he'd play 20. We're not paying 35m for 11 appearances.
-
A lot depends on Liverpool and whether they want his wages off the books for the whole season.
-
A lot depends on Liverpool and whether they want his wages off the books for the whole season.
He can't go anywhere else so it looks like he's stuck here, unless they have an injury crisis or something.
-
That's where I think Elliot could and should have been a better option for us. Don't see us holding onto Rogers post the WC if his form continues. Elliot would be a hedge against that happening too.
I agree with this. I don't get how Guessand is keeping Elliott out of either the RH starting role or as replacement for McGinn, on ability.
-
From The Athletic
HARVEY ELLIOTT, ASTON VILLA AND LIVERPOOL: WHAT WE’RE HEARING
These are testing times for Harvey Elliott.
He finds himself frozen out on loan at Aston Villa, no longer wanted by parent club Liverpool and very far from head coach Thomas Tuchel’s thoughts ahead of England’s final World Cup qualifiers this week, and with the tournament itself seven months away.
Not even in his worst nightmares would this scenario have played out after he made the tough decision to leave Anfield in search of regular game time just 10 weeks ago.
What happens next is largely dependent on Villa manager Unai Emery, and whether he finds a way to reintegrate Elliott.
An early exit currently looks unlikely, with no January recall clause in what is a season-long loan, while neither club have indicated at this stage that they want the deal cancelled. Adding to the complexity is a clause that states Villa must make Elliott’s transfer permanent should he make 10 appearances for them this season (he has already played six times, albeit just twice as a starter).
Liverpool sources have indicated that the final transfer fee would be £35million ($46m); Villa sources say it’s closer to £30m. Either way, it’s beginning to look like a less cost-effective deal than the one the latter, and many commentators, considered a bargain in the summer.
It all leaves Elliott in a tricky spot, especially as he’s already represented those two clubs this season and cannot move on in the winter window to feature for a third.
The Athletic spoke to a range of sources with knowledge of the situation, all of whom asked to remain anonymous as they did not have permission to talk, to see how we got here and what could happen next.
WHY DID ELLIOTT LEAVE LIVERPOOL FOR VILLA?
On the back of a brilliant summer, where he was named player of the tournament as England retained their Under-21 European Championship title, Elliott was ready to kick on with regular senior football.
He thought hard about staying at Liverpool and fighting for his place but, with the arrivals of new signings Florian Wirtz, Jeremie Frimpong and other attackers including Hugo Ekitike and Alexander Isak, it was clear he would face further struggles after making just two starts in the Premier League last season.
Although Elliott was named in the champions’ squad for the first three games of the campaign in August, when Villa formalised their interest, he decided a move would give him the best chance of achieving his aims, one of which was to push for a place in Tuchel’s squad for the World Cup next summer.
He also sensed an opportunity to lift a team in desperate need of attacking flair. When he joined on deadline day, September 1, Villa were the only team in the country not to have scored a goal in the young season. Ironically, it would be Elliott who ended that drought a couple of weeks later, but more difficult times were to follow.
Villa moved for Elliott having missed out on Lucas Paqueta of West Ham and Paris Saint-Germain’s Marco Asensio, the latter having spent the second half of last season on loan at the Birmingham club. Both players were preferred options for Emery.
The structure of the deal, which was driven by Villa’s since-departed president of football operations Monchi, also appealed as Liverpool were prepared to sanction a move that ensured Villa complied with European football governing body UEFA’s financial restrictions. Initially, Liverpool wanted around £50million, or £40m with a buyback clause, to sell Elliott but Germany’s RB Leipzig, the other club to show the most interest in him, were only prepared to pay around half that, so backed out.
It was only when Liverpool knew for certain they were signing striker Isak from Newcastle that they allowed Elliott to leave. Late in the summer window, they negotiated an initial loan to Villa including a buyback provision that ensured they could move to re-sign him in the future if his development stayed on track.
HOW HAS HE BEEN USED BY VILLA SINCE?
Elliott’s introduction was slow-going, broadly due to circumstances beyond his control. He joined at a difficult time, when Villa were struggling and in desperate need of creativity.
A goal on his first start, against Brentford in an eventual Carabao Cup defeat on September 16, initially offered some hope, but Emery’s stinging assessment of his mistimed passes as a second-half substitute in the following game — a 1-1 draw away to Sunderland — knocked him back.
Although Elliott started the next Premier League fixture against his boyhood club, Fulham, he was substituted at half-time and replaced with Emiliano Buendia, who has since found a rich vein of form and remains Emery’s preferred option.
Villa’s sharp upturn in form has also played a part in Elliott’s slow start in claret and blue. They are on a run of eight wins in 10 games, and competition for places in attacking midfield is fierce, with Emery preferring Morgan Rogers, John McGinn and Youri Tielemans as starters, with Buendia and Ross Barkley offering support.
It means Elliott’s game time over the past six weeks has been restricted to just four minutes off the bench at Feyenoord in the Europa League on October 2. He didn’t feature in either of Villa’s next two European games against Go Ahead Eagles and Maccabi Tel Aviv, and couldn’t even make the matchday squad for the Premier League wins over Manchester City last month and Bournemouth this past weekend.
WHY IS HE OUT OF FAVOUR THERE?
Largely because he has not yet fully adjusted to Emery’s strict footballing demands.
The No 10 in the Spaniard’s system is a key player who must be tactically erudite, recognising pressing triggers set by the striker, but also calm and composed in possession.
Last season with Liverpool, Elliott was largely called upon in the Premier League as a substitute when the game state needed changing. He rushed to make things happen when sent on. But at Villa, Emery prefers a more methodical approach. No Premier League team have attacked through central areas more since his arrival three years ago, so attacking midfielders are critical to the build-up.
It’s why the tried-and-trusted trio of Rogers, McGinn and Tielemans are currently preferred. Buendia’s renaissance was also unexpected — Villa were trying to offload him in the final days of the summer window, but the Argentinian wanted to stay, even when German club Stuttgart proposed a loan. He has scored four goals in eight games and looks fitter than ever 14 months on from returning after losing the entire 2023-24 season to an ACL knee injury.
Even Barkley, who Emery prefers as another No 6, is ahead when coming on as a No 10 because of the way he has performed recently in training.
It’s worth remembering, however, that a slow start under Emery does not necessarily mean the end for a player. Tielemans didn’t start in the Premier League until the November after he joined Villa in summer 2023, and Rogers also needed a few months to fully understand the manager’s demands following his arrival in that same season’s winter window.
HOW HAS ELLIOTT TAKEN ALL THIS?
There’s a growing frustration on the player’s part, because the situation is getting worse not better.
Elliott had to be patient last season when he sustained an injury early in Arne Slot’s debut year and missed out on a crucial period to impress the new head coach. When he returned, Liverpool were on a roll and Slot barely rotated his first-choice team, with Dominik Szoboszlai or Curtis Jones in attacking midfield and Mohamed Salah in blistering form on the right side of attack.
Now he finds himself unable to break into the Villa team because of their fine recent form. He has impressed staff at the club with his attitude and application and didn’t take offence to Emery’s tough love at first. However, he has become increasingly disappointed over the past month as sitting on the sidelines wasn’t what he expected or was told lay ahead when he signed.
The fact he’s only played 167 minutes by the November international break suggests he might have even had more game time if he’d stayed at Anfield, but the fear of wasting another season as a bit-part player is now his biggest concern.
WHAT HAS EMERY SAID ABOUT IT?
Emery welcomed Elliott with a hug when he joined, and has consistently praised his commitment and personality over the past two months.
Yet he hasn’t been afraid to call out his struggles to adapt. He said Elliott played passes too quickly in that draw with Sunderland, and demanded that he hit shorter, safer balls during build-up. “Some players need adaptation,” he said in a press conference after the game. “Harvey, he had one chance to score, but he has to understand our identity better as well. He has to (make) more passes before doing the last pass, the last assist.“
When asked why the 22-year-old wasn’t in the squad for the recent 1-0 home win against City, Emery said: “He is training well, and he played some matches, but the performances weren’t what we needed. Some players are playing as a No 10, and they are playing well, like Buendia and Rogers. Also Ross Barkley, after he was out.
“In the squad, we needed to take one player out, and I decided for (it to be) him. I am happy with him. He is training good. His commitment is fantastic and he is a good guy. (It is) Only a tactical decision.”
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN IN TERMS OF HIM JOINING VILLA PERMANENTLY NEXT SUMMER?
As difficult as it is for Elliott right now, time is still on his side.
He’s only two months into a season-long loan and isn’t far away from triggering the 10-appearances clause to make the move permanent. With Villa’s hectic schedule combining Premier League and Europa League fixtures and the FA Cup adding more to their plate in January, he may well be needed more often in the times ahead.
Still young (Elliott turns 23 in April), having gained Premier League and Champions League experience with Liverpool and with the potential to kick on as a player, he still has a high ceiling and will hold resale value.
For years, the Villa scouting department had identified Elliott as a player of interest, and even though he arrived at a time of tensions between Emery and Monchi, he remains a relatively safe investment.
COULD HE RETURN TO LIVERPOOL IN JANUARY?
There’s no specific winter-window break clause in the loan deal, nor have there been any discussions over cutting his time in the Midlands short.
It is not that Liverpool definitely believe he will join Villa in the summer — they clearly have no control over how Elliott is used by Emery — but they planned for the whole season without him and knew all the factors heading their way, with Egypt international Salah departing for Africa Cup of Nations duty in December and the summer’s new players needing time to settle in.
It certainly felt like the end for him at Anfield when Elliott was given the all-clear to leave. He delivered an emotional goodbye message on his social media platforms and Salah posted his own message wishing him well: “You leave as a champion, and I’ve got no doubt you’ll do big things at your new club. They are lucky to have you.”
It was a sentiment many agreed with but, after this difficult start, Elliott has a long way to go before those words become a reality.
-
So if he doesn’t get to 10 what happens at the end of the season? Do we have the ability to send him back or is it up to Liverpool to call him back? Otherwise we are stuck with his wages?
-
We can choose to sign him or not. But presumably if he's not played ten matches, we're not going to have any interest in paying them £30-35m.
-
Well indeed, but I think it’s highly unlikely that if he’d here for the whole season that he’s not playing 10 games.
-
I find it very easy to imagine.
-
I find it very easy to imagine.
To January absolutely, but in multiple competitions up to the end of the season, there will be injuries. He’s only got to make 5 more appearances. Just don’t see it, partially because I don’t buy for a second anyone comes into the club without Unai’s approval.
-
We'll bin him out the Europa squad, lose in the FAC3 so there's his chances of appearances dropping faster than Wolves.
-
I find it very easy to imagine.
To January absolutely, but in multiple competitions up to the end of the season, there will be injuries. He’s only got to make 5 more appearances. Just don’t see it, partially because I don’t buy for a second anyone comes into the club without Unai’s approval.
There's approval and "now that we've seen him up close, does this guy add enough to justify spending £35m on him?"
-
Yeah I get that, but we’re talking 5 more games. I think if he isn’t staying it’ll probably be something will be sorted for him to go back to Liverpool in Jan. Him literally doing nothing for the remainder of the season isn’t in their interest.
-
Emery says a "ten number" rather than a "number ten". Of all his broken expressions, that's the one that makes me wince.
-
Yeah I get that, but we’re talking 5 more games. I think if he isn’t staying it’ll probably be something will be sorted for him to go back to Liverpool in Jan. Him literally doing nothing for the remainder of the season isn’t in their interest.
But he can't play anywhere else apart from us or Liverpool and it doesn't feel like either Liverpool or Villa want to play him. So the choices we have are (a) play him and sign him (b) don't play him, don't sign him and pay his wages (c) pay Liverpool to get out of the agreement and he can sit on their bench instead of ours
So I guess our smallest liability is is (b) or (c) and it doesn't really matter which, as we'll be paying that money either way. Neither reflects particularly well on this chapter of our recruitment.
-
to be honest I hope he goes back ASAP - Unai clearly doesnt fancy him and Im bored of half the world seemingly treat it like a bigger injustice than the post office scandal
-
Is there an option to loan abroad?
-
Is there an option to loan abroad?
CD San Fernando have been in touch.
-
Malen wasn't used a great deal when he first come but at least he made the bench. I hope Elliot makes it here because he's a very good footballer and I think would fit into an Emery team nicely.
-
Is there an option to loan abroad?
CD San Fernando have been in touch.
Could probably do a job for Real Union as long as Emery doesn't slag him off to their coach.
-
The only options for him to go "on-loan" elsewhere would be to a club with overlapping seasons to the Prem league like the Nordic countries. However he still wouldn't be able to play for them intil their seasons start in March or whenever.
-
We'll bin him out the Europa squad, lose in the FAC3 so there's his chances of appearances dropping faster than Wolves.
I guess someone will go, as Mings will be back (Barkley swapped in for him didn't he?) and that will leave us with one too many again.
-
We'll bin him out the Europa squad, lose in the FAC3 so there's his chances of appearances dropping faster than Wolves.
I guess someone will go, as Mings will be back (Barkley swapped in for him didn't he?) and that will leave us with one too many again.
Mings is in, the only first teamer left out was Garcia.
-
We'll bin him out the Europa squad, lose in the FAC3 so there's his chances of appearances dropping faster than Wolves.
I guess someone will go, as Mings will be back (Barkley swapped in for him didn't he?) and that will leave us with one too many again.
Mings is in, the only first teamer left out was Garcia.
No, he's not. He was named in the original squad and Barkley was left out, then we swapped Barkley in when Mings got injured.
-
Ok I'm confused by that, Mings has played in 2 games but we're allowed to swap him out because he's picked up an injury, that seems odd.
-
Ok I'm confused by that, Mings has played in 2 games but we're allowed to swap him out because he's picked up an injury, that seems odd.
No idea how we did that but Mings is no longer showing in the squad and Barkey is.
https://www.uefa.com/uefaeuropaleague/clubs/52683--aston-villa/squad/
Edit: Rule change here.
Long-term injury or illness of an outfield player: during the league phase until matchday 6 included, the club concerned may temporarily replace a maximum of one outfield player and register a new outfield player.
-
Me too, and it wasn't really announced, other than Barkely being added just after Mings got injured. I've checked the squad and whilst it doesn't show the swap, the list reflects what I'm saying,
AI said this.
Ross Barkley replaced Tyrone Mings in the Aston Villa UEFA Europa League squad due to Mings' hamstring injury, which is expected to sideline him for several months.
Aston Villa was permitted to make one change to their List A squad for the Europa League group stage, provided the player being replaced was injured for at least 60 days. Mings' injury, sustained against Liverpool on November 1, 2025, met this condition.
This change allowed Barkley, who was not initially registered in the European squad, to be included on the bench for a match against Maccabi Tel Aviv in November 2025.
-
STOP IT!
-
I know, can we please get some dignity here.
-
Back to the topic at hand, through no fault of his own I kind of want him to just piss off now, the vibe of 'how dare they?' seems to be increasing and whilst I do have sympathy for him, we're forced to try and do deals like this thanks to rules that tie our hands but allow his parent club to spunk £400m up the wall making the best team worse, whilst Jacob Ramsey is lost for no good reason to a frozen Saudi outpost.
-
STOP IT!
But I'm bored on a Friday afternoon, there's no club football for another 9 days, and it's pissing it down outside.
-
STOP IT!
But I'm bored on a Friday afternoon, there's no club football for another 9 days, and it's pissing it down outside.
AI is making you bored. Read things yourself!!
-
Back to the topic at hand, through no fault of his own I kind of want him to just piss off now, the vibe of 'how dare they?' seems to be increasing and whilst I do have sympathy for him, we're forced to try and do deals like this thanks to rules that tie our hands but allow his parent club to spunk £400m up the wall making the best team worse, whilst Jacob Ramsey is lost for no good reason to a frozen Saudi outpost.
Same. If it's not going to happen for him there's no point prolonging the misery. I very much doubt Livepool would play ball with taking him back early though.
-
STOP IT!
But I'm bored on a Friday afternoon, there's no club football for another 9 days, and it's pissing it down outside.
AI is making you bored. Read things yourself!!
I'm reading things myself, I just couldn't be arsed to read through the UEFA Rules.
-
Ok I'm confused by that, Mings has played in 2 games but we're allowed to swap him out because he's picked up an injury, that seems odd.
No idea how we did that but Mings is no longer showing in the squad and Barkey is.
https://www.uefa.com/uefaeuropaleague/clubs/52683--aston-villa/squad/
Edit: Rule change here.
Long-term injury or illness of an outfield player: during the league phase until matchday 6 included, the club concerned may temporarily replace a maximum of one outfield player and register a new outfield player.
Hmm, that still doesn't explain why I was absolutely convinced that we'd put Barkley in to replace Garcia, no idea where I saw that because it's obviously wrong.
-
Just seen him wearing a Villa Christmas jumper on Insta, must mean he's staying forever!
-
It has "I hate" written above "Villa", though. And he hasn't even bothered to change "Christmas" to "Winterval". Send him back.
-
How do they know Mings will be out for 60 days? Seven weeks was the initial assessment wasn't it? Does that mean he can't play until that period of time now even if he was to heal quicker?
-
How do they know Mings will be out for 60 days? Seven weeks was the initial assessment wasn't it? Does that mean he can't play until that period of time now even if he was to heal quicker?
I don’t think he’ll be able to play in the UEL now until we submit the new squad list on Feb 1st.
-
How do they know Mings will be out for 60 days? Seven weeks was the initial assessment wasn't it? Does that mean he can't play until that period of time now even if he was to heal quicker?
The club must provide UEFA with the necessary medical evidence in one of UEFA's official languages. Before confirming the replacement, UEFA may require further medical examination of the outfield player by an expert appointed by UEFA at the club's expense. Once the injured or ill outfield player is fit to be fielded again, he becomes eligible and/or can resume his position in place of his substitute, who must consequently be removed from the list.
We obviously sent them medical evidence that two months or so would be the recovery time. In theory Mings comes back in after a minimum of 60 days if fit, and is still in the list instead of Barkley unless we officially remove him for when the next round squad has to be submitted.
-
I think what Emery is looking at here is, when you’ve got financial pressures and a first team and bench that lines up like this, what’s the best use of £30m and a decent weekly wedge?
Martinez
Cash
Konsa
Pau
Digne
Buendia
Onana
Kamara
McGinn
Rogers
Watkins
Subs:
Bizot
Tielemans
Malen
Sancho
Maatsen
Bogarde
Barkley
Mings
Guessand
Answer: probably not someone to replace Barkley or Guessand (who you’ve already paid £30m for).
-
How do they know Mings will be out for 60 days? Seven weeks was the initial assessment wasn't it? Does that mean he can't play until that period of time now even if he was to heal quicker?
The club must provide UEFA with the necessary medical evidence in one of UEFA's official languages. Before confirming the replacement, UEFA may require further medical examination of the outfield player by an expert appointed by UEFA at the club's expense. Once the injured or ill outfield player is fit to be fielded again, he becomes eligible and/or can resume his position in place of his substitute, who must consequently be removed from the list.
We obviously sent them medical evidence that two months or so would be the recovery time. In theory Mings comes back in after a minimum of 60 days if fit, and is still in the list instead of Barkley unless we officially remove him for when the next round squad has to be submitted.
With it being Uefa were probably get hit with a financial penalty if he's back sooner.
-
Doesn't even make the bench now, Hemmings there instead.
-
When was the last time he made the squad?
-
Must be at least partly why Monchi got the heave ho. Mad transfer clause.
-
When was the last time he made the squad?
Maccabi. I think the last league squad was Spurs.
-
When was the last time he made the squad?
Maccabi. I think the last league squad was Spurs.
I thought it had been a while. You putting ‘now’ made me think it might have been more recent.
-
Well you could say that of the 3 league games since he couldn't play in one and the other 2 we had a full first team bench. Now it's a case of Hemmings is ahead of him with Onana out.
-
I'll admit it's not looking good for him.
-
It really is weird. Like when Steve Bruce signed that Portuguese goalkeeper that we weren't allowed to actually pick. Why agree to the conditions in his contract if we had no intention of sticking to them?
-
I'll admit it's not looking good for him.
Good of you to do so.
-
Ok time to get rid and get in what we need. I don’t care if he’s been treated badly but he’s not what we need so spend thh JB e money elsewhere
-
Well you could say that of the 3 league games since he couldn't play in one and the other 2 we had a full first team bench. Now it's a case of Hemmings is ahead of him with Onana out.
Fair enough.
-
Worse than Sancho or Guessand?
-
Doesn't really matter if we aren't going to pick him regardless.
-
I think that for whatever reason we don't want to sign him. Guessand is already ours and Sancho is a pure loan so we can try and play them into the side. And i'd wager it's Unai that doesn't want him.
-
It’s looking more and more the case that we will find some kind of get out in January with Liverpool. Such a shame because after a terrible summer his signing gave us all a little hope. Especially on be back of his England U21 display and clear potential. But given he’s not contributing and Sancho won’t be any kind of loss if we found replacements for both in the next window (if possible) it wouldn’t be any kind of loss.
-
Cant see it myself. When hemmings is getting ahead of him in the bench that speaks volumes. This deals just been a waste of money and everyone's time.
-
Square peg, round hole, its just hasn't fitted, that could be financial conditions, that ten games and we have to pay for him or it could be stuff nobody outside of Body Moor see's, he could be disruptive in the squad, who knows, one things for sure, best he gets sent back in January and the money spent more wisely.
-
Shit for him - he must have saw Villa/Emery and turned 3 players into England squad regulars and fancied own chances of making next year's World Cup.
Needs to get another club. Back to Fulham or maybe spell in Bundesliga or the like
-
Another PL team isn't an option as he's already played for Liverpool this season apparently and you can't play for 3 teams in the same season, I read that about him the other day somewhere. Bundesliga is a good shout, him sticking around here for another 6 months isn't going to benefit anyone.
-
Another PL team isn't an option as he's already played for Liverpool this season apparently and you can't play for 3 teams in the same season, I read that about him the other day somewhere. Bundesliga is a good shout, him sticking around here for another 6 months isn't going to benefit anyone.
I think the 3 teams thing is a FIFA rule so he can only go back to Liverpool.
-
Another PL team isn't an option as he's already played for Liverpool this season apparently and you can't play for 3 teams in the same season, I read that about him the other day somewhere. Bundesliga is a good shout, him sticking around here for another 6 months isn't going to benefit anyone.
Correct it was in The Athletic. Assume non Prem is an option
-
Another PL team isn't an option as he's already played for Liverpool this season apparently and you can't play for 3 teams in the same season, I read that about him the other day somewhere. Bundesliga is a good shout, him sticking around here for another 6 months isn't going to benefit anyone.
I think the 3 teams thing is a FIFA rule so he can only go back to Liverpool.
Or go and play in Scandinavia from March.
-
As the weeks go on Slot actually putting him on in the 96th minute v Newcastle is hurting his prospects more as now he can't play for anyone else this season bar us or Liverpool.
There was Bundesliga interest in the summer before we came onto the scene so that will be his next move in the summer I suspect.
The writing has been on the wall for a few weeks but not making the bench today pretty much confirms things.
-
He can play for Liverpool, us or some team whose League starts early 2026 which probably means not until March time.
-
He can play for Liverpool, us or some team whose League starts early 2026 which probably means not until March time.
Will take his chances back at Liverpool. Their bench was really poor yesterday so he'll be back on that and probably playing in their FA Cup 3rd round tie.
-
If they want him back.
-
He can play for Liverpool, us or some team whose League starts early 2026 which probably means not until March time.
Will take his chances back at Liverpool. Their bench was really poor yesterday so he'll be back on that and probably playing in their FA Cup 3rd round tie.
Against us. Whereupon he scores the winner.
-
I can't see him going back unless Liverpool think he can be of use to them, and that's assuming there is a clause that allows him to go back. I'm not convinced by either of those so reckon he's here for the season.
-
I can't see him going back unless Liverpool think he can be of use to them, and that's assuming there is a clause that allows him to go back. I'm not convinced by either of those so reckon he's here for the season.
Same, and I'm far from convinced he'll go back at all, we'll see but I still don't think the club are writing him off as quickly as many people have.
-
We know from last season how every point, and goal, can be the difference at the end of the season. To pick Hemmings who was never going to be used today unless possibly if we were 5 up doesn't bode well for Elliott imo.
-
Maybe we should re-negotiate/Omit the "Ten Game" clause? Its such a small number, with a big knock on effect (£30m?); its effectively paralysed the deal.
The Athletic made a compelling case that the problem is a calendar thing, where we do not want to trigger the £30m until 2026. If so, when might he start playing again?
-
Maybe we should re-negotiate/Omit the "Ten Game" clause? Its such a small number, with a big knock on effect (£30m?); its effectively paralysed the deal.
The Athletic made a compelling case that the problem is a calendar thing, where we do not want to trigger the £30m until 2026. If so, when might he start playing again?
FA Cup 3rd Round on Jan 10th would be a good bet.
-
We'll start seeing him from West Ham away.
Can play the last four games of 2025 and take Guessand's place in the squad when he goes to Afcon
-
Just a thought, and I haven't the time to check, but the 10 appearance thing, could it have been misinterpreted and actually be 10 times in a matchday squad? He's been sub a few times without actually playing and perhaps he's at the limit already?
-
We'll start seeing him from West Ham away.
Can play the last four games of 2025 and take Guessand's place in the squad when he goes to Afcon
Sounds a good plan (assuming the accountancy calendar is the problem).
-
Worse than Sancho or Guessand?
As PWS said, we've already paid for Guessand, and Sancho is no-strings-attached ... unlike Elliot, we can play him without that meaning that we're locked in to buying him.
Maybe we should re-negotiate/Omit the "Ten Game" clause? Its such a small number, with a big knock on effect (£30m?); its effectively paralysed the deal.
The Athletic made a compelling case that the problem is a calendar thing, where we do not want to trigger the £30m until 2026. If so, when might he start playing again?
Yeah, agree on both of these. The 10 game clause seems to have nuked any chance he had of playing for us, unless he hit the ground running which was a big ask.
I'd assume it's not something like the calendar thing. I can't see - if we had no ability to pay the fee in January - why either us or Liverpool would set the date as then (if he'd met the quota) and not the end of the season. Surely it's no skin off their nose if he'd played 10 games by December and so we were locked in to buying him that next summer? That's better for them surely, if they knew we wouldn't have to spend the first 5 months of the lad's career with us fucking him about.
I really don't get this deal at all. Why did we agree to such ridiculous terms that don't really suit any party?
-
Calendar year theory is related to UEFA Squad Costs rules. They would consider him to be a permanent transfer as soon as he hits 10 games rather than in the summer when the deal actually happens. As UEFA Finance rules are based on calendar year, we'd have to recognise the £35m in 2025 and presumably make us fail their rules and risk a European ban. We wouldn't have trouble actually paying the fee.
How it happened is probably desperation. It was a dark time that Sunday night after being smashed by Palace
-
Worse than Sancho or Guessand?
As PWS said, we've already paid for Guessand, and Sancho is no-strings-attached ... unlike Elliot, we can play him without that meaning that we're locked in to buying him.
Maybe we should re-negotiate/Omit the "Ten Game" clause? Its such a small number, with a big knock on effect (£30m?); its effectively paralysed the deal.
The Athletic made a compelling case that the problem is a calendar thing, where we do not want to trigger the £30m until 2026. If so, when might he start playing again?
Yeah, agree on both of these. The 10 game clause seems to have nuked any chance he had of playing for us, unless he hit the ground running which was a big ask.
I'd assume it's not something like the calendar thing. I can't see - if we had no ability to pay the fee in January - why either us or Liverpool would set the date as then (if he'd met the quota) and not the end of the season. Surely it's no skin off their nose if he'd played 10 games by December and so we were locked in to buying him that next summer? That's better for them surely, if they knew we wouldn't have to spend the first 5 months of the lad's career with us fucking him about.
I really don't get this deal at all. Why did we agree to such ridiculous terms that don't really suit any party?
Yup. The ten games was clearly put in there at such a low level to make it inevitable that he would hit it and the transfer would be confirmed (much like we did with Barrenechea) because Liverpool wanted to sell him and we didn't have the capacity to give them £30m in August. And we probably expected Elliott to have played ten matches already, and be doing the decent job that Buendia is doing now.
What's happened since is that a combination of Elliott not looking like what we wanted / thought we were getting, and Buendia doing far better than anyone expected him to, we're doing our best to not hit the ten matches and commit £30m to him.
The accountancy period thing clearly can't be true - if it were, and we are keen to use him but just can't do so until January, why did we use three of those ten matches for four minutes against Feyenoord, 19 minutes against Everton and half an hour against Sunderland when presumably we'd want to "save" those limited appearances for more important times?
-
Could just reflect the (purported) general confusion at the club over the rules and their application. Which some may feel lies behind the departure of Monchi.
As "out there" as that explanation may seem.
-
Calendar year theory is related to UEFA Squad Costs rules. They would consider him to be a permanent transfer as soon as he hits 10 games rather than in the summer when the deal actually happens. As UEFA Finance rules are based on calendar year, we'd have to recognise the £35m in 2025 and presumably make us fail their rules and risk a European ban. We wouldn't have trouble actually paying the fee.
How it happened is probably desperation. It was a dark time that Sunday night after being smashed by Palace
But if this is the reason, then with him having played five matches already and we have nine matches until the new UEFA accounting period, there's no reason at all we shouldn't see him play in four of them? Then he can play his tenth game for us against Forest on January 3rd, we commit to the transfer and the whole plan worked.
Unless - it's just because we just don't think he's worth spending the money on and that's why we're not playing him.
-
If he was impressing in training he’d be in the squad / team.
-
Let’s not forget he was not Unai’s first choice.
-
If he was impressing in training he’d be in the squad / team.
Not if him getting minutes resulted in us breaching the Uefa rules.
He would at least be getting on the bench if it wasn't for the risk of the crystallisation of the £35m. You don't go from being a squad player for a team that wins the league and being player of the tournament at the U21's to not even making our bench.
-
Worse than Sancho or Guessand?
As PWS said, we've already paid for Guessand, and Sancho is no-strings-attached ... unlike Elliot, we can play him without that meaning that we're locked in to buying him.
Maybe we should re-negotiate/Omit the "Ten Game" clause? Its such a small number, with a big knock on effect (£30m?); its effectively paralysed the deal.
The Athletic made a compelling case that the problem is a calendar thing, where we do not want to trigger the £30m until 2026. If so, when might he start playing again?
Yeah, agree on both of these. The 10 game clause seems to have nuked any chance he had of playing for us, unless he hit the ground running which was a big ask.
I'd assume it's not something like the calendar thing. I can't see - if we had no ability to pay the fee in January - why either us or Liverpool would set the date as then (if he'd met the quota) and not the end of the season. Surely it's no skin off their nose if he'd played 10 games by December and so we were locked in to buying him that next summer? That's better for them surely, if they knew we wouldn't have to spend the first 5 months of the lad's career with us fucking him about.
I really don't get this deal at all. Why did we agree to such ridiculous terms that don't really suit any party?
Yup. The ten games was clearly put in there at such a low level to make it inevitable that he would hit it and the transfer would be confirmed (much like we did with Barrenechea) because Liverpool wanted to sell him and we didn't have the capacity to give them £30m in August. And we probably expected Elliott to have played ten matches already, and be doing the decent job that Buendia is doing now.
What's happened since is that a combination of Elliott not looking like what we wanted / thought we were getting, and Buendia doing far better than anyone expected him to, we're doing our best to not hit the ten matches and commit £30m to him.
The accountancy period thing clearly can't be true - if it were, and we are keen to use him but just can't do so until January, why did we use three of those ten matches for four minutes against Feyenoord, 19 minutes against Everton and half an hour against Sunderland when presumably we'd want to "save" those limited appearances for more important times?
Given some other stuff that's happened (i.e. not being able to add Malen to the UCL squad) it could be that we didn't know exactly how the rule would work and only found out for sure that the cost would go into the year the clause was met (rather than when it was paid) after those early appearances, which is why we became much more sparing with him after that.
For me the main thing is that Emery keeps saying he's happy with him and he's training well and is just taking some time to get up to speed with how we play and what's expected of him. He might be lying but I personally choose to believe him (because I think he's earned that trust).
-
Regardless of him being in the 2025 or 2026 accounts, it wouldn't be an immediate £30m hit, would it? It would be split over the course of his contract. If its 4 years, that's less than a £10m hit to each year's costs.
Are we that close to the limit where we'd rather forego what he could bring to the team so that none of his cost is in our 2025 numbers?
-
If he was impressing in training he’d be in the squad / team.
Not if him getting minutes resulted in us breaching the Uefa rules.
He would at least be getting on the bench if it wasn't for the risk of the crystallisation of the £35m. You don't go from being a squad player for a team that wins the league and being player of the tournament at the U21's to not even making our bench.
Yeah, but then if we were limited to him only playing 10 games before 1st February, why would we even consider putting him on in the 90-whatever minute against Feyenoord? Wouldn't we have been better saving that for if, heaven forbid, Buendia or Rogers (for example) picked up an injury? Why waste an appearance in a game where we were leading 2-0 with 4 minutes to go?
I mean, maybe it was 10 league appearances - but then why was Hemmings on the bench in favour of him against Leeds? It's not like he's that likely to breach those league appearances before 1st January (he'd have to appear in literally every game for that to happen).
Or even by 1st February for that matter, since he'd have to appear in 7 of the 11 games ... which doesn't seem that likely if he's a substitute. You could surely keep him on the subs bench as an option if that were the case?
-
For me the main thing is that Emery keeps saying he's happy with him and he's training well and is just taking some time to get up to speed with how we play and what's expected of him. He might be lying but I personally choose to believe him (because I think he's earned that trust).
But if it were the other one - I don't think he'd say anything different. I don't think he's going to say in an interview "actually, turns out he's not right for us after all so we're avoiding playing him so we don't have to buy him". It makes everyone involved look like twats, so no benefit comes from saying so.
Ultimately - we're clearly not playing him because of this ten game thing in the contract. It's either that do want to sign him but want to push the signing into a new calendar year or that we don't want to sign him so we're making sure he never hits ten matches.
Not wanting to sign him logically tallies with him not making the bench ahead of youth team players. Wanting to sign him but just a bit later than originally planned, doesn't in my opinion. If we see him as a part of our future from January 1st, why isn't he there instead of Hemmings?
-
I mean, maybe it was 10 league appearances - but then why was Hemmings on the bench in favour of him against Leeds?
Or even use matches against Maccabi and Go Ahead Eagles as an excellent opportunity to ease him into the team.
-
He is clearly going back on Jan 1st.
Ironically Slot putting him on in 96th minute v Newcastle has probably knackered his season more than the issues here as now he can't play for anyone else this season.
Will just have to take his chances back at Liverpool. Salah will be at AFCON when he goes back there.
-
For me the main thing is that Emery keeps saying he's happy with him and he's training well and is just taking some time to get up to speed with how we play and what's expected of him. He might be lying but I personally choose to believe him (because I think he's earned that trust).
But if it were the other one - I don't think he'd say anything different. I don't think he's going to say in an interview "actually, turns out he's not right for us after all so we're avoiding playing him so we don't have to buy him". It makes everyone involved look like twats, so no benefit comes from saying so.
Ultimately - we're clearly not playing him because of this ten game thing in the contract. It's either that do want to sign him but want to push the signing into a new calendar year or that we don't want to sign him so we're making sure he never hits ten matches.
Not wanting to sign him logically tallies with him not making the bench ahead of youth team players. Wanting to sign him but just a bit later than originally planned, doesn't in my opinion. If we see him as a part of our future from January 1st, why isn't he there instead of Hemmings?
I suspect that spot on the bench was intended for Onana if he was fit and when he wasn't quite there we wanted someone more like-for-like because we already had Sancho, Guessand, Barkley and Malen on the bench as subs for the front 4. Giving Elliott a spot as well just means we'd have left ourselves short of options in the more defensive positions. I get that it looks like a slight though, and maybe it is, but for me Barkley coming back and having a few really good performances off the bench is the main reason Elliott isn't getting a spot.
-
Guess we'll find out one way or the other in January.
Personally however, I wouldn't be putting much money on his Villa career being a long one.
-
He might be exactly what liverpool need at the moment…
-
Regardless of him being in the 2025 or 2026 accounts, it wouldn't be an immediate £30m hit, would it? It would be split over the course of his contract. If its 4 years, that's less than a £10m hit to each year's costs.
Are we that close to the limit where we'd rather forego what he could bring to the team so that none of his cost is in our 2025 numbers?
Part of the deal wasn't the account figures as such, it was ensuring we were net postive on the transfer values for 2025. We are currently about 20mil in the green but if the Elliot figure went in we are suddenly 10mil in the red. I'm assuming we need to either sell again in Jan or hope we can get money in from somewhere to stay positive in Jan.
-
But don't the net transfer values reflect amortised values only (i.e a quarter of the contract) and not full transfer costs in one hit?
-
I think they just dont see him as an upgrade on little Emi.
Why would we spend what little budget we have if thats the case.
-
Little emi, Little budget equals little of Harvey.
-
I think he goes back in Jan 100%, we are not going to buy him and we are trashing his value for Liverpool
-
We may not be able to send him back, and Liverpool may not be able to recall him. It's far from certain he'll be back there in Jan. I think it's unlikely he can go back as the only reason it was a loan was to help us so the contract probably has no clauses for him going back.
-
But if all three parties agree, will that matter?
-
Have any of us seen his contract clauses with Villa - i honestly thought he would do well for us, but Unai obviously doesn’t seem to be able to fit him into his system of playing
Hopefully all gets sorted in January
-
Emi B has been exceptional this year and fully deserves his place. I hope his form continues and this is reflective of his level post a horrid injury. But it could be a few good months from a player who was out the door. I really hope we’re thinking sufficiently clearly in terms of longer term on this. Elliott has shown a really high potential ceiling in his career to date (acknowledging it’s not realised) and is a lot younger. I’m not saying we should absolutely buy him, but I still look at his cost and think there’s value there. I hope were thinking clearly on it.
-
He's definitely still an alive person. He makes an apperance in the Christmas advert.
-
There is no January break clause. The clubs would need to agree to terminate the loan, allowing Plo-p to sell the player.
-
There is no January break clause. The clubs would need to agree to terminate the loan, allowing Plo-p to sell the player.
He can't play for anyone (that he would want to move to) else apart from us and Liverpool until next season. So there would be no point anyone else buying him until next summer.
-
He's definitely still an alive person. He makes an apperance in the Christmas advert.
Does that count as one of his appearances?
-
He's definitely still an alive person. He makes an apperance in the Christmas advert.
Does that count as one of his appearances?
For a moment I thought they had him mopping the floor in it!
-
He's definitely still an alive person. He makes an apperance in the Christmas advert.
Does that count as one of his appearances?
For a moment I thought they had him mopping the floor in it!
No that was Nigel Spink
-
I realised that from the front, but the first shot was from the back and he’d just been on.
-
At last, the reason Harv has been shunned. Clearly flouted unauthorised access rules halfway through this John Lewis ad:
-
Well at least he got something to do.
-
Well at least he got something to do.
The wink is probably "after you're done hiding behind this laundry basket, get it back to me so they can smuggle me up to Liverpool in it".
-
Well at least he got something to do.
The wink is probably "after you're done hiding behind this laundry basket, get it back to me so they can smuggle me up to Liverpool in it".
I'm not here really, isn't Christmas magic?!
-
Aston Villa manager Unai Emery on Harvey Elliott's future: "We have a lot of matches, we must focus on this and not think about January. Harvey is one of our players, hopefully he can help us.
"We have a lot of players performing well, but Harvey is training well."
-
Doesn't really offer the "lifeline" as reported by the Beeb, does it?!
-
I think he is saying he has to earn his place Christmas Advert or not !
-
I wonder how much wages we have wasted on him and Sancho so far.
-
Like I said, enough to have kept Ramsey here and contributed more than both. And Newcastle haven't got anything out of JJ so far either. All been a waste of time so far. Bring JJ and Harvey home. Jadon can do what he wants.
-
I suspect we needed the day one cash injection that a homegrown sale provided.
-
Yep, JJ went because we needed the extra financial injection from 40m or whatever it was for a homegrown player.
-
Out of curiosity, was reading one of the Liverpool FC message boards yesterday for their views on Elliot.
They seem to have heard somewhere that Elliot is currently having difficulty in adapting to the villa style of play. Apparently he is to forward thinking, anxious and doesn't always select the best option. A bit gung ho.
Unai likes his players to be thinkers, measured, calm on the ball, have a few options for a pass and select the correct one.
I rate Elliot and hope he can adapt to Unai's style of play.
-
The 10 game clause is clearly the issue. He's gone by Christmas.
-
The 10 game clause is clearly the issue. He's gone by Christmas.
Unless Liverpool want to play him, why would they agree to take him and his wages back?
-
The 10 game clause is clearly the issue. He's gone by Christmas.
I know it's a minor point, but I don't think he'd have been in the Xmas video if he were heading back to Anfield in a few weeks.
-
The 10 game clause is clearly the issue. He's gone by Christmas.
I know it's a minor point, but I don't think he'd have been in the Xmas video if he were heading back to Anfield in a few weeks.
Wouldnt it have be recorded months ago?
-
The 10 game clause is clearly the issue. He's gone by Christmas.
I know it's a minor point, but I don't think he'd have been in the Xmas video if he were heading back to Anfield in a few weeks.
Wouldnt it have be recorded months ago?
Good point. Feels a tad "they won't sell Milner, he's February in the 2011 calendar".
-
I think the most likely thing is the 10 game clause is removed - well then stop avoiding playing him whilst still playing - if he impresses will sell him or someone will buy him.
The second most likely is another PL club has agreed to a similar deal and happy to take him for the second half of the season.
-
He can’t play for any team other than Villa and Liverpool until next season.
-
In that case - it seem almost certain that the drop of the clause will have to happen to avoid him having no football for a seaosn
-
I think the most likely thing is the 10 game clause is removed - well then stop avoiding playing him whilst still playing - if he impresses will sell him or someone will buy him.
The second most likely is another PL club has agreed to a similar deal and happy to take him for the second half of the season.
As above, the second definitely isn't happening.
The first, sure - that's good for us. But unless we paid Liverpool something to make it worth their while to agree to it...why would they agree to it? They agreed to set the deal up this way to help our skin-of-our-teeth financial strategy. Messing people around, who we will inevitably deal with again in the future will get remembered and talked about.
Feels a lot like when everyone thought it was hilarious that Chelsea were paying Man Utd millions of pounds to not have to sign Jadon Sancho.
-
I know it's a minor point, but I don't think he'd have been in the Xmas video if he were heading back to Anfield in a few weeks.
Wouldnt it have be recorded months ago?
Doubt it, the weather looks pretty grey in it.
-
I'd bet the farm on him going back to Liverpool.
They need all the help they can get at the moment.
-
I'd bet the farm on him going back to Liverpool.
They need all the help they can get at the moment.
but would we agree to that? There's not really any benefit for us to let him go early and improve them.
-
To be fair to the player?
-
I think the most likely thing is the 10 game clause is removed - well then stop avoiding playing him whilst still playing - if he impresses will sell him or someone will buy him.
The second most likely is another PL club has agreed to a similar deal and happy to take him for the second half of the season.
As above, the second definitely isn't happening.
The first, sure - that's good for us. But unless we paid Liverpool something to make it worth their while to agree to it...why would they agree to it? They agreed to set the deal up this way to help our skin-of-our-teeth financial strategy. Messing people around, who we will inevitably deal with again in the future will get remembered and talked about.
Feels a lot like when everyone thought it was hilarious that Chelsea were paying Man Utd millions of pounds to not have to sign Jadon Sancho.
Yep, I think if we don’t put this through by essentially using the 10 game clause as a get out, which was very obviously not the intention of it, then it might cause us issues dealing with clubs in future. At the very least it’ll make them think twice.
-
I’m coming to the conclusion that the amount of hot air in here is adding to global warming. It’s quite obvious he’s having trouble adapting, Unai has said as much, added to this there is in all likelihood a 10 game clause which was included in the deal for some unspecified reason. In that scenario it’s likely to be January before we see much of him though he may get some minutes in our very busy December. I think any talk of him going back is quite frankly bonkers.
-
I think the most likely thing is the 10 game clause is removed - well then stop avoiding playing him whilst still playing - if he impresses will sell him or someone will buy him.
The second most likely is another PL club has agreed to a similar deal and happy to take him for the second half of the season.
As above, the second definitely isn't happening.
The first, sure - that's good for us. But unless we paid Liverpool something to make it worth their while to agree to it...why would they agree to it? They agreed to set the deal up this way to help our skin-of-our-teeth financial strategy. Messing people around, who we will inevitably deal with again in the future will get remembered and talked about.
Feels a lot like when everyone thought it was hilarious that Chelsea were paying Man Utd millions of pounds to not have to sign Jadon Sancho.
Yep, I think if we don’t put this through by essentially using the 10 game clause as a get out, which was very obviously not the intention of it, then it might cause us issues dealing with clubs in future. At the very least it’ll make them think twice.
Liverpool will agree to it because having a 35m player in the bomb squad at a "lesser" team for a season will reduce his value. If he gets to play for us - he may a) really impress us and we decide to buy him, b) impress someone else. Sitting in our reserves just buts a question mark over him as a player to other suiters.
I get the point that it may make us look like the kind of club that you cant do business with - but I think we can easily get round that by explaining it to other clubs as a disconnect between Monchi and Unai which has been resolved, or Elliot being way shitter than we could have ever imagined.
Alternatively we may agree a deal that means we may a slightly higher loan fee without the need to buy, so we can use him more freely. But ultimately that fact hes not showing he's worth 35m to us is not our problem
-
I’m coming to the conclusion that the amount of hot air in here is adding to global warming. It’s quite obvious he’s having trouble adapting, Unai has said as much, added to this there is in all likelihood a 10 game clause which was included in the deal for some unspecified reason. In that scenario it’s likely to be January before we see much of him though he may get some minutes in our very busy December. I think any talk of him going back is quite frankly bonkers.
Emery doesn't sound so sure.
"We are not thinking about the transfer window in January. He is one of our players and hopefully he can help us. Then, we are going to decide."
-
Yep, JJ went because we needed the extra financial injection from 40m or whatever it was for a homegrown player.
Except Damian has said that we offered him a new deal but he refused to sign it. So had he done so, would we have sold someone else? Or just not bought Guessand? Fine by me.
-
I'd bet the farm on him going back to Liverpool.
They need all the help they can get at the moment.
but would we agree to that? There's not really any benefit for us to let him go early and improve them.
I guess it might save us some money. But frankly the player has been dicked about, so it would be the decent thing to do and would reflect better on us as a club.
-
Yep, JJ went because we needed the extra financial injection from 40m or whatever it was for a homegrown player.
Except Damian has said that we offered him a new deal but he refused to sign it. So had he done so, would we have sold someone else? Or just not bought Guessand? Fine by me.
Well, that doesn't rule it out as an explanation, in fact, it makes it more likely - we have a player refusing a new deal, who represents PSR gold.
He was home grown, sell him and we bank the entirety of the 40m fee in this year's accounts. We then go and absolutely waste spend 30m on Guessand on (guessing here) a 5 year deal, and we're taking a 6m a year hit to the accounts.
Keeping JJ rather than buying another player was much more than just a "is this player better than that one" comparison.
-
I'm sure I said in the summer that my opinion is that we wanted to extend his contract but with some protection for us if his injury problems carried on, probably including very little in terms of a pay increase.
That makes sense from our side and it's easy to see why he'd be unhappy about it.
From there he wanted to stay and revisit it after the summer but we didn't want to risk his value dropping when we had an offer we were happy with and were struggling to raise funds elsewhere.
-
Yep, JJ went because we needed the extra financial injection from 40m or whatever it was for a homegrown player.
Except Damian has said that we offered him a new deal but he refused to sign it. So had he done so, would we have sold someone else? Or just not bought Guessand? Fine by me.
Well, that doesn't rule it out as an explanation, in fact, it makes it more likely - we have a player refusing a new deal, who represents PSR gold.
He was home grown, sell him and we bank the entirety of the 40m fee in this year's accounts. We then go and absolutely waste spend 30m on Guessand on (guessing here) a 5 year deal, and we're taking a 6m a year hit to the accounts.
Keeping JJ rather than buying another player was much more than just a "is this player better than that one" comparison.
I get that but our preference was to keep him. I was speculating on what we would have done had we come to an agreement as it was touch and go whether he'd leave or not and this was mid-August. What do you think we'd have done had we not sold him?
Only thing I can think of, to meet UEFAs rules with two weeks to go, would have been to let Martínez go on the cheap to Yanited or refuse loans for Bailey but take less for a transfer fee than we wanted.
-
I'm sure I said in the summer that my opinion is that we wanted to extend his contract but with some protection for us if his injury problems carried on, probably including very little in terms of a pay increase.
That makes sense from our side and it's easy to see why he'd be unhappy about it.
From there he wanted to stay and revisit it after the summer but we didn't want to risk his value dropping when we had an offer we were happy with and were struggling to raise funds elsewhere.
I think this probably checks-out.
-
Yep, JJ went because we needed the extra financial injection from 40m or whatever it was for a homegrown player.
Except Damian has said that we offered him a new deal but he refused to sign it. So had he done so, would we have sold someone else? Or just not bought Guessand? Fine by me.
Well, that doesn't rule it out as an explanation, in fact, it makes it more likely - we have a player refusing a new deal, who represents PSR gold.
He was home grown, sell him and we bank the entirety of the 40m fee in this year's accounts. We then go and absolutely waste spend 30m on Guessand on (guessing here) a 5 year deal, and we're taking a 6m a year hit to the accounts.
Keeping JJ rather than buying another player was much more than just a "is this player better than that one" comparison.
I get that but our preference was to keep him. I was speculating on what we would have done had we come to an agreement as it was touch and go whether he'd leave or not and this was mid-August. What do you think we'd have done had we not sold him?
Only thing I can think of, to meet UEFAs rules with two weeks to go, would have been to let Martínez go on the cheap to Yanited or refuse loans for Bailey but take less for a transfer fee than we wanted.
Yep, we'd have had to sell someon else.
-
Move Martinez or Bailey on earlier in the summer - which seems to have been the assumed path but didn’t happen (a loan offer for Emi and cooled Saudi interest in Bailey) - and Ramsey would still be here.
-
Contractually I am not sure of the position. His transfer was reported as a loan with obligation to buy (after 10 appearances)??
Do we know for sure in he doesn’t make 10 appearances by January Liverpool need to take him back? I haven’t seen this confirmed anywhere. If Slot doesn’t fancy him then aren’t we just stuck with his wages?
-
The 10 game clause is clearly the issue. He's gone by Christmas.
I know it's a minor point, but I don't think he'd have been in the Xmas video if he were heading back to Anfield in a few weeks.
Wouldnt it have be recorded months ago?
I mean, as these things go it’s alright, but it’s not Ben Hur. They’d have knocked it off in afternoon.
-
Contractually I am not sure of the position. His transfer was reported as a loan with obligation to buy (after 10 appearances)??
Do we know for sure in he doesn’t make 10 appearances by January Liverpool need to take him back? I haven’t seen this confirmed anywhere. If Slot doesn’t fancy him then aren’t we just stuck with his wages?
Aston Villa is (sic) delighted to announce the signing of Harvey Elliott from Liverpool.
The 22-year-old joins the club on an initial season-long loan deal with an obligation to buy conditional on appearances.
He is here for the season, either on loan or permanently. But it is for the season.
-
Makes squad tonight?
-
He's on programme duty.
-
JJ has hardly kicked a ball for his new club,
-
He'll surely get a run of starts at some stage but Barnes is in-form and the skinny blonde is a regular starter too.
-
Getting ourselves into such a tangle was another nail in Monchi’s coffin.
-
He'll surely get a run of starts at some stage but Barnes is in-form and the skinny blonde is a regular starter too.
Amanda Holden?
-
(https://media0.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPTZjMDliOTUyZzN4aGhidzBnOW9qcXJqN2VqdDZubnd3ZXRtOW41NnpvenF5YmVoayZlcD12MV9naWZzX3NlYXJjaCZjdD1n/KeR505b7AfEEjs8hjC/200w.gif)
-
He'll surely get a run of starts at some stage but Barnes is in-form and the skinny blonde is a regular starter too.
That's the thing - they had Gordon and Barnes and he isn't going to start regularly ahead of their midfield 3. Maybe spark that Barnes needed to improve
-
The next Liverpool manager might want him.
-
If Liverpool want to protect their investment, they'll terminate this loan early Jan.
Emery doesn't want him so best for all parties to agree it was a 4 month fuck up and call it a day.
-
If Liverpool want to protect their investment, they'll terminate this loan early Jan.
Is there investment better protected by him not playing for them and them paying his wages, over him not playing for us and us paying his wages?
-
If he can’t get a game against a pub team like Young Boys, there’s no hope for the kid here. Return to sender.
-
Did we want to use up one of the 10 appearances against a pub team like Young Boys. If he hasn't made an appearance by the 27th Dec though I expect we are not playing him at all.
-
If Liverpool want to protect their investment, they'll terminate this loan early Jan.
Emery doesn't want him so best for all parties to agree it was a 4 month fuck up and call it a day.
There was a discussion on Sky Sports News about him earlier today. The reporter was outside Villa Park and said that it's likely Emery doesn't rate him and certainly doesn't want to fork out £35m for him, so it's unlikely that we will see him play for Villa again.
Unless he's done something badly wrong, it's hard not to feel a bit of sympathy for him.
-
Seems like cruelty to finally put him in the match squad then not put him on when our youth team would have been comfortable. Not at all content with the way we are treating him.
-
See ya
-
Seems like cruelty to finally put him in the match squad then not put him on when our youth team would have been comfortable. Not at all content with the way we are treating him.
If the 10 game thing is real, as well as its impact on our 'net positive window' demand from UEFA, then I have no doubt the club will have sat down with him and explained the situation; it's not like he'll be feeling 'snubbed', he'll understand perfectly why he's not playing.
If it's not real, then I strongly suspect there will be negotiations going on to see if we can find a compromise to hand him back in January. It'll cost us, no doubt, but we'll make it work to free up a squad place.
However, we have 8 games left in the calendar year, so if the clause is real, he can still appear in 4 of them without it being triggered. If we've not seen him on the pitch by the Arsenal game (which will be our 4th game in 10 days), then you'd have to think Unai simply doesn't fancy him. In this very crowded run of fixtures, you'd have to think he'll be used, even if it uses up a couple of his remaining 2025 appearances, just to give some of the other players a rest.
-
If Liverpool want to protect their investment, they'll terminate this loan early Jan.
Is there investment better protected by him not playing for them and them paying his wages, over him not playing for us and us paying his wages?
They're shite, he will get a game for them!
-
If Liverpool want to protect their investment, they'll terminate this loan early Jan.
Is there investment better protected by him not playing for them and them paying his wages, over him not playing for us and us paying his wages?
They're shite, he will get a game for them!
Agree, Slot will welcome him back with open arms, if he's still there by Jan!
My point was that basically, the more he sits on our bench/or even left out of squads altogether, his value diminishes week by week. At least back at Liverpool, he'll get some involvement - he may even dislodge Salah...
-
Surely Liverpool will just spend another half a billion quid in January so they won't need him.
-
Back out the squad again.
-
Back out the squad again.
Maybe suggests that if there is an obligation to buy triggered after 10 games, those have to be league games. UTV
-
Back out the squad again.
Maybe suggests that if there is an obligation to buy triggered after 10 games, those have to be league games. UTV
He'd be playing in the Europa League matches then.
-
Back out the squad again.
Maybe suggests that if there is an obligation to buy triggered after 10 games, those have to be league games. UTV
He'd be playing in the Europa League matches then.
Not necessarily, assuming Emery does not really fancy him.
With a few first choice options rested for Europa League games, Emery can put him on the bench and use him if needed - even if only to run down the clock. It might that he won't even risk that with league games.
-
Back out the squad again.
Maybe suggests that if there is an obligation to buy triggered after 10 games, those have to be league games. UTV
Or it shows that there is less places on the bench then in UEFA competition games.
-
Back out the squad again.
Maybe suggests that if there is an obligation to buy triggered after 10 games, those have to be league games. UTV
He'd be playing in the Europa League matches then.
Not necessarily, assuming Emery does not really fancy him.
With a few first choice options rested for Europa League games, Emery can put him on the bench and use him if needed - even if only to run down the clock. It might that he won't even risk that with league games.
In that case, the reason he's not playing is because we don't want to use him, not because of any stress about purchase obligations.
If we can use him in non-league matches without worrying about our agreement with Liverpool, and we're choosing not to use him, then the only reason we're not using him is because we don't want to.
-
He's going back to Liverpool.
The end.
-
He's going back to Liverpool.
The end.
I reckon the only way he stays is if they agree to waive the obligation to buy.
-
If he wants to stay the hair needs to go.
-
If he wants to stay the hair needs to go.
Yes, that as well.
-
Although Foden is starting to beat Elliott to shittest two hairstyles in the prem by one player.
-
Elliott has made a total of 5 appearances across all competitions (Premier League - 3, League Cup -1, and Europa League-1).
Been an unused substitute on at least 6 other occasions (3 in the Premier League and 3 in the Europa League).
So that's 11 times in the squad (6 Premier League), 5 times on the pitch.
Not sure where that leaves the 10, but I think it has to be said Emery isn't thinking he's the one.
-
He's going back to Liverpool.
The end.
That certainly seems to be the view of John Townley.
-
Elliott has made a total of 5 appearances across all competitions (Premier League - 3, League Cup -1, and Europa League-1).
Been an unused substitute on at least 6 other occasions (3 in the Premier League and 3 in the Europa League).
So that's 11 times in the squad (6 Premier League), 5 times on the pitch.
Not sure where that leaves the 10, but I think it has to be said Emery isn't thinking he's the one.
It leaves it on five.
-
Elliott has made a total of 5 appearances across all competitions (Premier League - 3, League Cup -1, and Europa League-1).
Been an unused substitute on at least 6 other occasions (3 in the Premier League and 3 in the Europa League).
So that's 11 times in the squad (6 Premier League), 5 times on the pitch.
Not sure where that leaves the 10, but I think it has to be said Emery isn't thinking he's the one.
It leaves it on five.
Unless it's 10 Premier League.
-
With Barkley potentially injured, it will be interesting if Harvey makes the bench Wednesday. I suspect he will although not neccesarily played.
-
Elliott has made a total of 5 appearances across all competitions (Premier League - 3, League Cup -1, and Europa League-1).
Been an unused substitute on at least 6 other occasions (3 in the Premier League and 3 in the Europa League).
So that's 11 times in the squad (6 Premier League), 5 times on the pitch.
Not sure where that leaves the 10, but I think it has to be said Emery isn't thinking he's the one.
It leaves it on five.
Unless it's 10 Premier League.
As per posts above, then we'd be using him in Europe. Unless the reason we're not using him in Europe is that we don't think he's good enough.
In which case, the only reason we're not playing him is because we don't think he's good enough, and the "ten appearances" thing is a complete red herring as to why he's not playing.
-
With Barkley potentially injured, it will be interesting if Harvey makes the bench Wednesday. I suspect he will although not neccesarily played.
Well he put George Hemmings on the bench against Leeds, leaving Elliott out and I reckon he will probably do the same tomorrow.
-
I guess if he starts against Forest on 3/1/26, then we'll have our answer.
-
With Barkley potentially injured, it will be interesting if Harvey makes the bench Wednesday. I suspect he will although not neccesarily played.
Well he put George Hemmings on the bench against Leeds, leaving Elliott out and I reckon he will probably do the same tomorrow.
Again that was mostly about balance. How we're setup means there are, effectively, 4 attacking players and 6 defensive players. Emery very rarely puts more than 4 attacking players on the bench as a result, that day we had Guessand, Sancho, Barkley and Malen on the bench as that 4 and then we had a gap where Onana would've bene on the bench (and Bogarde was there but had come back from international duty with a knock) so there wasn't a obvious place for Elliott.
With Barkley out that spot is now open and much more likely to be available for Elliott to take. If we pick Jimoh-Aloba (or similar) for it instead then it shows that Elliott is being intentionally sidelined rather than us just needing to leave someone out and him being the unlucky one of 3 who could all be dropped (Sancho and Guessand the other 2 who are struggling).
-
He's going back to Liverpool to do nothing, all the days of his life.
-
I guess if he starts against Forest on 3/1/26, then we'll have our answer.
It's too late to be late again, the European canon is here.
-
This whole thing is fucking weird, isn't it?
-
This whole thing is fucking weird, isn't it?
His Barnet or the situation in general?
-
With Barkley now ruled out for 8-10-12 weeks, and he still doesn't get mins or make the bench, I think we can safely say he never will.
-
With Barkley now ruled out for 8-10-12 weeks, and he still doesn't get mins or make the bench, I think we can safely say he never will.
I think he will make the bench. It is the mins he might not get until either late december if we are keeping him or not at all if we are not bothering.
-
I think if we haven't seen him get on the pitch at/by West Ham away then he's going back. I genuinely think the 10 games thing is the reason and Monchi didn't realise. It can't make any other sense, the guy played plenty for last season's champions.
-
Barkley originally came in as a DM/quarterback, so I hope Bogarde is given any spare minutes in that position.
He’s looked classy this season and deserves opportunities,
-
Maybe we're reinventing Elliott as a new Right Back.
-
The odd thing they keep using him to wear christmas jumpers .
-
With our schedule in December he has to be on the bench at some point?!
-
Article about it on the Beeb now....
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/c0q51l742lyo
-
I think think we need to loan out Elliot to a mid table club like Liverpool where he’ll get more opportunities to play.