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.
-
We don't need him. We don't need Summer 2025, it can fuck off. We're Winter Invincible.
-
Didn’t travel to Basel. What a disaster of a situation this has become that he’s essentially deemed surplus to requirements.
And not exactly the clearest of statements by Unai either
"Hopefully we can get a solution for him to try to play consistently and try to continue in his career with us or not."
-
The whole thing is just a pointless spaffing of negative energy.
Why bother with any arrangement at all if ultimately, any one of us is more likely to get a game for Villa than him?
-
Liverpool were short 4 substitutes on their bench last night and also Mo is/has pissed off. They might need him back.
Only good thing Elliot did for us is possibly raise Little Emi's game!!
-
Liverpool were short 4 substitutes on their bench last night and also Mo is/has pissed off. They might need him back.
Only good thing Elliot did for us is possibly raise Little Emi's game!!
He had a decent cameo in the Christmas video
-
The whole thing is just a pointless spaffing of negative energy.
Why bother with any arrangement at all if ultimately, any one of us is more likely to get a game for Villa than him?
The whole thing makes no sense. It was the only bit of positivity at the end of a shit window. But outside of a couple of appearances a very promising English born player, player of the tournament for the U21s has literally vanished into thin air. Othet than appearing in a Christmas sweater that is on the club website. Is he really so bewildered by the Unai system that he hasn't picked up anything at all in 3 months? No signs of a fall out, argument etc. Is this 10 game thing real that we simply won't play him at all? He's essentially the entirety of the 2025 bomb squad and almost exclusively all of the negativity at the club right now. Ok, that and the quality of food in the Doug Ellis and the time to pour pints.
-
🚨⚠️ Unai Emery confirms Harvey Elliott is likely to leave Aston Villa in January: “Hopefully we can get a solution for him to try to play consistently, to continue in his career with us or not”.
“He is on loan here, but not definitely adding to us with a permanent contract”.
-
The whole thing is just a pointless spaffing of negative energy.
Why bother with any arrangement at all if ultimately, any one of us is more likely to get a game for Villa than him?
The whole thing makes no sense. It was the only bit of positivity at the end of a shit window. But outside of a couple of appearances a very promising English born player, player of the tournament for the U21s has literally vanished into thin air. Othet than appearing in a Christmas sweater that is on the club website. Is he really so bewildered by the Unai system that he hasn't picked up anything at all in 3 months? No signs of a fall out, argument etc. Is this 10 game thing real that we simply won't play him at all?
Obviously. Based on what we've seen, there is one version of events that makes sense.
We have to spend £30m on him if he plays ten matches. He had come in to play* a role that is a combination of what McGinn / Rogers / Buendia do. From what the club has seen (and given a turbo-boost by what Buendia is doing) we now don't want to commit £30m on him playing that position, thinking that £30m is better used elsewhere. If Buendia had died on his arse in his first couple of appearances (or Elliott had been amazing), I'm guessing we'd have chucked our weight behind the signing. But he didn't, so we're rolling the dice on a couple of years of Buendia being what Elliott was supposed to be, and thinking where that money could be better used.
Elliott is clearly really good, and I'm sure he'd be quite comfortable with whatever Emery wants him to do. But not to the extent that we want to hand over the pre-agreed money for it.
*there's another role that he possibly played, the role of "this guy might make those twats that follow us less angry about how shit the season has started, so just agree to whatever gets this bloke over the line"
-
🚨⚠️ Unai Emery confirms Harvey Elliott is likely to leave Aston Villa in January: “Hopefully we can get a solution for him to try to play consistently, to continue in his career with us or not”.
“He is on loan here, but not definitely adding to us with a permanent contract”.
I do feel a bit sorry for him, it’s been a waste of six months for him.
-
Based on what we've seen, there is one version of events that makes sense.
Agreed. The only thing to add was the whole structure of the deal was poor on our side.
-
I reckon that there’s some truth in that last conjecture, although the target may extend beyond “the twats that follow us” to the club itself. Did everyone in the club really understand the deal?
Out of curiosity, how many appearances has Elliot made since Monchi left?
-
🚨⚠️ Unai Emery confirms Harvey Elliott is likely to leave Aston Villa in January: “Hopefully we can get a solution for him to try to play consistently, to continue in his career with us or not”.
“He is on loan here, but not definitely adding to us with a permanent contract”.
I do feel a bit sorry for him, it’s been a waste of six months for him.
Yep. In limbo.
As others said no-one saw Buendia revival. McGinn is playing as well as ever.
Right signing at totally the wrong time.
I suspect he will help Liverpool 2nd half of season and end up at Bournemouth ot Palace next season for 25m + add ons
-
Yeah I feel sorry for him. It’s not great at all.
-
I suspect he will help Liverpool 2nd half of season and end up at Bournemouth ot Palace next season for 25m + add ons
That feels very prescient.
I wouldn't rule out him fitting back in at Liverpool, doing a good job, him being their Buendia and going on to having the sort of career which prompts umpteen "why didn't we just sign him?!?" posts in a few years time.
-
I absolutely guarantee throughout his career he’ll score plenty of goals against us.
-
I absolutely guarantee throughout his career he’ll score plenty of goals against us.
Yeah got that Peter Crouch feel about it.
-
I reckon that there’s some truth in that last conjecture, although the target may extend beyond “the twats that follow us” to the club itself. Did everyone in the club really understand the deal?
Out of curiosity, how many appearances has Elliot made since Monchi left?
According to a recent article, five. In all competitions.
-
I reckon that there’s some truth in that last conjecture, although the target may extend beyond “the twats that follow us” to the club itself. Did everyone in the club really understand the deal?
Out of curiosity, how many appearances has Elliot made since Monchi left?
Yep and the Unai comments after the Sunderland game were pretty damning. To me this is why Monchi left so swiftly!
-
🚨⚠️ Unai Emery confirms Harvey Elliott is likely to leave Aston Villa in January: “Hopefully we can get a solution for him to try to play consistently, to continue in his career with us or not”.
“He is on loan here, but not definitely adding to us with a permanent contract”.
Maybe I'm overthinking it - and he is simply out the door on January 1st - but do the last two sentences suggest he could be staying as a loan signing if they remove the obligation - but no way we're spending £35m on him ?
-
🚨⚠️ Unai Emery confirms Harvey Elliott is likely to leave Aston Villa in January: “Hopefully we can get a solution for him to try to play consistently, to continue in his career with us or not”.
“He is on loan here, but not definitely adding to us with a permanent contract”.
Maybe I'm overthinking it - and he is simply out the door on January 1st - but do the last two sentences suggest he could be staying as a loan signing if they remove the obligation - but no way we're spending £35m on him ?
I took it as that.
-
I reckon that there’s some truth in that last conjecture, although the target may extend beyond “the twats that follow us” to the club itself. Did everyone in the club really understand the deal?
Out of curiosity, how many appearances has Elliot made since Monchi left?
According to a recent article, five. In all competitions.
Had a quick look. Since Monchi left, he’s played the first 45 vs Fulham and a 4 minute cameo in the Europa.
-
I reckon that there’s some truth in that last conjecture, although the target may extend beyond “the twats that follow us” to the club itself. Did everyone in the club really understand the deal?
Out of curiosity, how many appearances has Elliot made since Monchi left?
According to a recent article, five. In all competitions.
Had a quick look. Since Monchi left, he’s played the first 45 vs Fulham and a 4 minute cameo in the Europa.
Five. See link below:
https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/articles/c0q51l742lyo
-
I reckon that there’s some truth in that last conjecture, although the target may extend beyond “the twats that follow us” to the club itself. Did everyone in the club really understand the deal?
Out of curiosity, how many appearances has Elliot made since Monchi left?
According to a recent article, five. In all competitions.
Had a quick look. Since Monchi left, he’s played the first 45 vs Fulham and a 4 minute cameo in the Europa.
Five. See link below:
https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/articles/c0q51l742lyo
It's not. Three of his five appearances were before Monchi left on September 22nd
-
I reckon that there’s some truth in that last conjecture, although the target may extend beyond “the twats that follow us” to the club itself. Did everyone in the club really understand the deal?
Out of curiosity, how many appearances has Elliot made since Monchi left?
According to a recent article, five. In all competitions.
Had a quick look. Since Monchi left, he’s played the first 45 vs Fulham and a 4 minute cameo in the Europa.
Five. See link below:
https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/articles/c0q51l742lyo
It's not. Three of his five appearances were before Monchi left on September 22nd
You are right, sorry. Five in total. I need a trip to specsavers.
-
I suspect he will help Liverpool 2nd half of season and end up at Bournemouth ot Palace next season for 25m + add ons
That feels very prescient.
I wouldn't rule out him fitting back in at Liverpool, doing a good job, him being their Buendia and going on to having the sort of career which prompts umpteen "why didn't we just sign him?!?" posts in a few years time.
I thought you were sceptical of Liverpool wanting him back.
-
Yep it all feels like we want to do the transfer clause so we are not playing him until they do. Feel a bit sorry for him off thats the case
-
The whole thing is just a pointless spaffing of negative energy.
Why bother with any arrangement at all if ultimately, any one of us is more likely to get a game for Villa than him?
The whole thing makes no sense. It was the only bit of positivity at the end of a shit window. But outside of a couple of appearances a very promising English born player, player of the tournament for the U21s has literally vanished into thin air. Othet than appearing in a Christmas sweater that is on the club website. Is he really so bewildered by the Unai system that he hasn't picked up anything at all in 3 months? No signs of a fall out, argument etc. Is this 10 game thing real that we simply won't play him at all?
Obviously. Based on what we've seen, there is one version of events that makes sense.
We have to spend £30m on him if he plays ten matches. He had come in to play* a role that is a combination of what McGinn / Rogers / Buendia do. From what the club has seen (and given a turbo-boost by what Buendia is doing) we now don't want to commit £30m on him playing that position, thinking that £30m is better used elsewhere. If Buendia had died on his arse in his first couple of appearances (or Elliott had been amazing), I'm guessing we'd have chucked our weight behind the signing. But he didn't, so we're rolling the dice on a couple of years of Buendia being what Elliott was supposed to be, and thinking where that money could be better used.
Elliott is clearly really good, and I'm sure he'd be quite comfortable with whatever Emery wants him to do. But not to the extent that we want to hand over the pre-agreed money for it.
*there's another role that he possibly played, the role of "this guy might make those twats that follow us less angry about how shit the season has started, so just agree to whatever gets this bloke over the line"
I find it confusing that people are confused. We’re restricted by the financial rules and we’d rather spend the money on some other player/s.
-
I suspect he will help Liverpool 2nd half of season and end up at Bournemouth ot Palace next season for 25m + add ons
That feels very prescient.
I wouldn't rule out him fitting back in at Liverpool, doing a good job, him being their Buendia and going on to having the sort of career which prompts umpteen "why didn't we just sign him?!?" posts in a few years time.
I thought you were sceptical of Liverpool wanting him back.
I'd be sceptical of a Liverpool side doing well under Slot wanting him back, because that's the side that wanted to bin him off to us.
But it feels likely that by the end of January either Slot won't be there or Salah won't be part of their plans anymore, and I can well imagine Elliott being back and part of that rebuild.
-
It's an expensive and restricting mistake whatever happens. I can't imagine Liverpool agreeing anything until the last day of the window anyway.
-
It's an expensive and restricting mistake whatever happens. I can't imagine Liverpool agreeing anything until the last day of the window anyway.
How is it expensive? Surely it's only expensive if we are forced to activate the permanent transfer isn't it?
-
The wages if nothing else.
-
Given the precarious financial situation, the pretty shabby way we’ve treated him will hardly endear us to other potential loan signings we’ll be looking at to strengthen the squad in January.
A rare moment we’ve planned poorly and implemented that plan badly.
-
The wages if nothing else.
And if we did want to send him back to open up another domestic loan spot in the squad then Liverpool aren't going to do that for free. Especially given how we've messed them around.
Not too far removed from Chelsea paying Man Utd to not sign Sancho, which people found terribly amusing last summer.
-
Given the precarious financial situation, the pretty shabby way we’ve treated him will hardly endear us to other potential loan signings we’ll be looking at to strengthen the squad in January.
A rare moment we’ve planned poorly and implemented that plan badly.
I doubt many players would give the slightest fuck about it. Everyone knows that sometimes signings don't work out, they're not going to think less of clubs as a result. In much the same way they won't look at Rashford and decide to join us because he had a good loan spell.
All players will see is a club that is in the mix for the regularly champions league.
-
Given the precarious financial situation, the pretty shabby way we’ve treated him will hardly endear us to other potential loan signings we’ll be looking at to strengthen the squad in January.
A rare moment we’ve planned poorly and implemented that plan badly.
I doubt many players would give the slightest fuck about it. Everyone knows that sometimes signings don't work out, they're not going to think less of clubs as a result. In much the same way they won't look at Rashford and decide to join us because he had a good loan spell.
All players will see is a club that is in the mix for the regularly champions league.
Agree with that, players are going to look at the many successes over the occasional mistake - but I imagine next time we're negotiating a transfer and ask a club to structure a deal to help get us out of an accounting snafu, they're likely to bring this situation up.
-
I'd really like to understand what's going on here? Maybe nothing? I was pleased when we signed him, but so far it seems to have been a waste of time.
-
I guess it is the beauty of a loan signing . We have looked at him , he is good but not worth spending £35 million in that department becasue we are well stocked. Lets allocate that money elsewhere
-
I guess it is the beauty of a loan signing . We have looked at him , he is good but not worth spending £35 million in that department becasue we are well stocked. Lets allocate that money elsewhere
Yeah, this. We've looked at him, he hasn't done enough to justify spaffing £35m on. Maybe if Liverpool had put a more sane playing clause in he might've had more chance to play himself in to form as it were. But the 10 game clause meant he needed to hit the ground running, and he hasn't done that. Shit happens, I don't think it's our fault that there's a daft clause in there as I can't see us having petitioned for it. This one is on Liverpool's mad negotiation tactics IMO.
-
You can't blame Liverpool for it. We fucked up.
-
Yeah it’s not Liverpool, if anything they were doing us a favour - which I suspect most clubs will think twice about.
-
You can't blame Liverpool for it. We fucked up.
I think it is a Fuck up if we spent £35 million and then not want him.
Least damage possible for the club less so for him though
-
We're stuck with a player we don't want enough to pay £35m for, (or we can't afford), and therefore he can't play. We're tied to his wages for a season. We agreed the deal and that's why Monchi went.
-
Well yes, but it’s pretty clear that the deal was set up to be permanent but was structured as a loan to help with our compliance with the financial rules. The fact we’ve utilised the structure to get out of it maybe sensible now, but I imagine will influence Liverpool and potentially other clubs and their dealings with us. If it were the other way round I’d expect Villa to be pretty hesitant accommodating such a deal with a club that had done this.
-
The wages if nothing else.
It maybe the same situation as Chelsea found themselves with Sancho. He was so Meh with them that they forked out £8 million (or some such, as a loan fee) to Manchester United to avoid having to pay the obligatory transfer fee they'd agreed.
-
I guess it is the beauty of a loan signing . We have looked at him , he is good but not worth spending £35 million in that department becasue we are well stocked. Lets allocate that money elsewhere
Yeah, this. We've looked at him, he hasn't done enough to justify spaffing £35m on. Maybe if Liverpool had put a more sane playing clause in he might've had more chance to play himself in to form as it were. But the 10 game clause meant he needed to hit the ground running, and he hasn't done that. Shit happens, I don't think it's our fault that there's a daft clause in there as I can't see us having petitioned for it. This one is on Liverpool's mad negotiation tactics IMO.
Their aim was to sell him to someone last summer.
We wanted to sign him but our restrictions stopped us from signing him permanently when they wanted us to, so they structured the deal to suit our accounting requirements.
This isn't their "mad negotiation tactics", this is closer to us welching on the deal as everyone involved understood it.
Which doesn't matter, we've (as things stand) taken advantage of that fact, so good on us.
But if there is any "blame" to hand out, it's on us, not them.
-
I don't think it's an expensive mistake. I remember reading that he is actually on a comparatively low basic wage at Liverpool (less £50k per week). Presumably the permanent transfer includes an agreed pay hike, which would presumably be +£100k per week, which we won't want to trigger.
If we can cut and run now and if we're only covering his current wage, it's not actually that expensive. Liverpool will probably need to negotiate some sort of exit deal as he can only play for them or us this season but going back to Liverpool at least gives him a chance of some playing time rather than us winding down his season without activating the ten games
-
I guess it is the beauty of a loan signing . We have looked at him , he is good but not worth spending £35 million in that department becasue we are well stocked. Lets allocate that money elsewhere
Yeah, this. We've looked at him, he hasn't done enough to justify spaffing £35m on. Maybe if Liverpool had put a more sane playing clause in he might've had more chance to play himself in to form as it were. But the 10 game clause meant he needed to hit the ground running, and he hasn't done that. Shit happens, I don't think it's our fault that there's a daft clause in there as I can't see us having petitioned for it. This one is on Liverpool's mad negotiation tactics IMO.
Their aim was to sell him to someone last summer.
We wanted to sign him but our restrictions stopped us from signing him permanently when they wanted us to, so they structured the deal to suit our accounting requirements.
This isn't their "mad negotiation tactics", this is closer to us welching on the deal as everyone involved understood it.
Which doesn't matter, we've (as things stand) taken advantage of that fact, so good on us.
But if there is any "blame" to hand out, it's on us, not them.
Assuming:
- There's a 10 game clause
- We wanted the deal this way to avoid spending the money in 2025
- UEFA consider the cost incurred as soon as the clause is triggered
If all of that is true as expected then the biggest problem is the number of games. By restricting it to 10 we couldn't have used him much more than we have even if he was brilliant and we are 100% behind a permanent transfer. As soon as that was agreed there was always a risk he was going to end up forgotten because we will have played 26 games by the time we could trigger the clause so he was, at best, available for about 40%. 20 or even 25 games would've been a much more sensible number for everyone involved.
-
I guess it is the beauty of a loan signing . We have looked at him , he is good but not worth spending £35 million in that department becasue we are well stocked. Lets allocate that money elsewhere
Yeah, this. We've looked at him, he hasn't done enough to justify spaffing £35m on. Maybe if Liverpool had put a more sane playing clause in he might've had more chance to play himself in to form as it were. But the 10 game clause meant he needed to hit the ground running, and he hasn't done that. Shit happens, I don't think it's our fault that there's a daft clause in there as I can't see us having petitioned for it. This one is on Liverpool's mad negotiation tactics IMO.
Their aim was to sell him to someone last summer.
We wanted to sign him but our restrictions stopped us from signing him permanently when they wanted us to, so they structured the deal to suit our accounting requirements.
This isn't their "mad negotiation tactics", this is closer to us welching on the deal as everyone involved understood it.
Which doesn't matter, we've (as things stand) taken advantage of that fact, so good on us.
But if there is any "blame" to hand out, it's on us, not them.
Assuming:
- There's a 10 game clause
- We wanted the deal this way to avoid spending the money in 2025
- UEFA consider the cost incurred as soon as the clause is triggered
If all of that is true as expected then the biggest problem is the number of games. By restricting it to 10 we couldn't have used him much more than we have even if he was brilliant and we are 100% behind a permanent transfer. As soon as that was agreed there was always a risk he was going to end up forgotten because we will have played 26 games by the time we could trigger the clause so he was, at best, available for about 40%. 20 or even 25 games would've been a much more sensible number for everyone involved.
Undoubtedly. Clearly none of the three parties involved thought through the implications of their clever plan and how it would actually work in practice.
But ultimately, the end result is next time we want to do something clever the other club is going to tell us where to get off.
I remember back in the early Lerner years it was a source of (possibly misplaced) pride on here how we went about things "the right way" and how it was claimed that clubs wanted to deal with us because of we didn't mess them around. This is the opposite of that.
edit - obviously not to the extent that they won't sell us players. But it's not hard to pick up a reputation.
-
I’m sure it won’t be that difficult to pin it all on Monchi.
-
He seems such a lovely chap in that video. I feel sorry for him.
-
Yep I think it’s undeniable that it’s not a good look from a reputation perspective.
-
Clearly none of the three parties involved thought through the implications of their clever plan and how it would actually work in practice.
Seems like the sort of thing that happens when clubs are desperately trying to move a player on/sign pretty much anyone with just a few hours left before the transfer window closes.
-
I am not sure we have done anything wrong other than work in the parameters of the deal. All 3 parties would have agreed to this knowing the potential consequences. So I am glad we are not forced into buying someone the manager clearly dose not want.
-
I’m sure it won’t be that difficult to pin it all on Monchi.
Kaiser Sosa
-
I’m sure it won’t be that difficult to pin it all on Monchi.
Kaiser Sosa
why is he not limping anymore ??
-
I do feel sorry for the player though.
-
There are two ways to look at this, one is that we've welched on a deal that was 99% certain to be confirmed, and left a young and promising player in career limbo and the selling club pissed at us for not completing the deal as it was originally agreed in summer.
The other way to look at it is that we've avoided spending £35m on a player Unai doesn't want (or thinks is the best use of that money). Without FFP restrictions, it's entirely possible Harvey would already be a Villa player, at £35m, and be labelled a big-money flop by some of us because Unai doesn't fancy him or doesn't trust him in his team.
When transfers don't work out, there is never a "good" solution, but of the two options above, I'm much happier with the club following the first approach, than the second.
I still think Harvey is a very talented player, who will have an excellent top flight career, but it's clear Unai has either been told "don't play him as we can't afford to trigger the clause", or simply doesn't fancy him long-term, having seen him in training.
In an ideal world, we come to some arrangement that either sees him go back to Liverpool in January and fight for minutes with them (more likely if Salah goes), or second best we pay a more acceptable "loan fee" for the season so we can actually play him without having to commit to buy him - but the latter obviously risks us having a very unmotivated player on our hands. He knows he's not wanted, so why would he bust a gut for us now?
It's a real shame it hasn't worked out.
-
The simple fact is he hasn't been good enough to displace the players in front of him.
We're not in the position to spend £35m on someone who isn't an improvement.
-
I guess it is the beauty of a loan signing . We have looked at him , he is good but not worth spending £35 million in that department becasue we are well stocked. Lets allocate that money elsewhere
Yeah, this. We've looked at him, he hasn't done enough to justify spaffing £35m on. Maybe if Liverpool had put a more sane playing clause in he might've had more chance to play himself in to form as it were. But the 10 game clause meant he needed to hit the ground running, and he hasn't done that. Shit happens, I don't think it's our fault that there's a daft clause in there as I can't see us having petitioned for it. This one is on Liverpool's mad negotiation tactics IMO.
Their aim was to sell him to someone last summer.
We wanted to sign him but our restrictions stopped us from signing him permanently when they wanted us to, so they structured the deal to suit our accounting requirements.
This isn't their "mad negotiation tactics", this is closer to us welching on the deal as everyone involved understood it.
Which doesn't matter, we've (as things stand) taken advantage of that fact, so good on us.
But if there is any "blame" to hand out, it's on us, not them.
Id be thinking Elliot probably has grounds for a case against us. This isn't a footballing decision anyway, he's barely got a chance while others like Guessand and Sancho have got plenty despite really poor performances. Even if he was having issues off the pitch, Barkley was brought straight back into the group after his "personal issue". It's a horrible way to treat another human or even employee.
If your assessment is correct, and I imagine it's close to the mark as Liverpool would have tried to do right by Elliot, clubs are going to very cautious dealing with us going forward in similar situations.
-
Yep I think it’s undeniable that it’s not a good look from a reputation perspective.
This is where I am, his treatment has been shabby and the whole scenario reflects on us poorly. But, in the wider scheme of things, I'm not going to worry about it too much.
-
There are two ways to look at this, one is that we've welched on a deal that was 99% certain to be confirmed, and left a young and promising player in career limbo and the selling club pissed at us for not completing the deal as it was originally agreed in summer.
The other way to look at it is that we've avoided spending £35m on a player Unai doesn't want (or thinks is the best use of that money). Without FFP restrictions, it's entirely possible Harvey would already be a Villa player, at £35m, and be labelled a big-money flop by some of us because Unai doesn't fancy him or doesn't trust him in his team.
When transfers don't work out, there is never a "good" solution, but of the two options above, I'm much happier with the club following the first approach, than the second.
I still think Harvey is a very talented player, who will have an excellent top flight career, but it's clear Unai has either been told "don't play him as we can't afford to trigger the clause", or simply doesn't fancy him long-term, having seen him in training.
In an ideal world, we come to some arrangement that either sees him go back to Liverpool in January and fight for minutes with them (more likely if Salah goes), or second best we pay a more acceptable "loan fee" for the season so we can actually play him without having to commit to buy him - but the latter obviously risks us having a very unmotivated player on our hands. He knows he's not wanted, so why would he bust a gut for us now?
It's a real shame it hasn't worked out.
Yup, all of that.
I wonder how much of it is the situation spiralling. He's not brilliant (who was, at the start of the season?), so finds it hard to get minutes. That means he's less important to us. That means he feels less wanted. That means he's not trying as much as he could. That means he doesn't get picked. That means he's even less important to us. That means we start to think about whether we actually want to buy him after all. That means the manager is less bothered about integrating him into the system. That means he doesn't look as good in training.
And so on.
-
That all seems a reasonable guess, and even UE's positive comments about him can be explained by him not wanting to burn bridges if an injury crisis means he is needed.
-
To be honest - I think some of it is due to the constraints of FFP - I don’t think we acted in bad faith it just we simply have to be ruthless because buying him would most likely see use selling someone else and it’s not worth it.
If we werent under those constraints I think we would have bought him out right - he would have played a bit more and we would probably all think he’s a waste of money like Guessard.
Unai did give him a chance but he clearly didn’t like what he sees. He seems to do that with some players and far me it from me to judge him.
-
I am not sure we have treated him shabbily . As far as we know he is not playing because he is not playing as well as others
-
I am not sure we have treated him shabbily . As far as we know he is not playing because he is not playing as well as others
The thing is we don't know as he has barely got a chance, not even getting picked in EL squads says it all . He did score ironically enough v Brentford, bright enough that night from memory.
-
I am not sure we have treated him shabbily . As far as we know he is not playing because he is not playing as well as others
But he's not playing at all so how can you tell that?
-
I am not sure we have treated him shabbily . As far as we know he is not playing because he is not playing as well as others
The thing is we don't know as he has barely got a chance, not even getting picked in EL squads says it all . He did score ironically enough v Brentford, bright enough that night from memory.
Yes hard to judge on early season as everyone was playing poorly but obviously Unai seems him in training everyday and has weighed it up. Obviously we cant have a £35 million squad player
-
I am not sure we have treated him shabbily . As far as we know he is not playing because he is not playing as well as others
But he's not playing at all so how can you tell that?
I cant but the manager does in training i guess
-
I guess it is the beauty of a loan signing . We have looked at him , he is good but not worth spending £35 million in that department becasue we are well stocked. Lets allocate that money elsewhere
Yeah, this. We've looked at him, he hasn't done enough to justify spaffing £35m on. Maybe if Liverpool had put a more sane playing clause in he might've had more chance to play himself in to form as it were. But the 10 game clause meant he needed to hit the ground running, and he hasn't done that. Shit happens, I don't think it's our fault that there's a daft clause in there as I can't see us having petitioned for it. This one is on Liverpool's mad negotiation tactics IMO.
Their aim was to sell him to someone last summer.
We wanted to sign him but our restrictions stopped us from signing him permanently when they wanted us to, so they structured the deal to suit our accounting requirements.
This isn't their "mad negotiation tactics", this is closer to us welching on the deal as everyone involved understood it.
Which doesn't matter, we've (as things stand) taken advantage of that fact, so good on us.
But if there is any "blame" to hand out, it's on us, not them.
Id be thinking Elliot probably has grounds for a case against us. This isn't a footballing decision anyway, he's barely got a chance while others like Guessand and Sancho have got plenty despite really poor performances. Even if he was having issues off the pitch, Barkley was brought straight back into the group after his "personal issue". It's a horrible way to treat another human or even employee.
If your assessment is correct, and I imagine it's close to the mark as Liverpool would have tried to do right by Elliot, clubs are going to very cautious dealing with us going forward in similar situations.
You've posted a lot of silly things over the years but that bold bit is up there with the dumbest things I've ever read on here.
-
We're doing what's best for us which is what you'd expect, we're the closest to being the baddies in this scenario though.
-
As usual people are sticking to the two extremes, where why can't both things be true? He's probably not good enough or doesn't fit Emery's system, but he's also been treated pretty badly. "We" wanted him, signed him on loan and then bar a few minutes haven't even played him - it's not a good look for him or for us.
-
I guess it is the beauty of a loan signing . We have looked at him , he is good but not worth spending £35 million in that department becasue we are well stocked. Lets allocate that money elsewhere
Yeah, this. We've looked at him, he hasn't done enough to justify spaffing £35m on. Maybe if Liverpool had put a more sane playing clause in he might've had more chance to play himself in to form as it were. But the 10 game clause meant he needed to hit the ground running, and he hasn't done that. Shit happens, I don't think it's our fault that there's a daft clause in there as I can't see us having petitioned for it. This one is on Liverpool's mad negotiation tactics IMO.
Their aim was to sell him to someone last summer.
We wanted to sign him but our restrictions stopped us from signing him permanently when they wanted us to, so they structured the deal to suit our accounting requirements.
This isn't their "mad negotiation tactics", this is closer to us welching on the deal as everyone involved understood it.
Which doesn't matter, we've (as things stand) taken advantage of that fact, so good on us.
But if there is any "blame" to hand out, it's on us, not them.
Id be thinking Elliot probably has grounds for a case against us. This isn't a footballing decision anyway, he's barely got a chance while others like Guessand and Sancho have got plenty despite really poor performances. Even if he was having issues off the pitch, Barkley was brought straight back into the group after his "personal issue". It's a horrible way to treat another human or even employee.
If your assessment is correct, and I imagine it's close to the mark as Liverpool would have tried to do right by Elliot, clubs are going to very cautious dealing with us going forward in similar situations.
You've posted a lot of silly things over the years but that bold bit is up there with the dumbest things I've ever read on here.
That's quite the honour!
-
As usual people are sticking to the two extremes, where why can't both things be true? He's probably not good enough or doesn't fit Emery's system, but he's also been treated pretty badly. "We" wanted him, signed him on loan and then bar a few minutes haven't even played him - it's not a good look for him or for us.
I'm not sure that's a particularly accurate reflection of the last few pages. That seems to be the pretty overwhelming view as far as I can see.
-
As usual people are sticking to the two extremes, where why can't both things be true? He's probably not good enough or doesn't fit Emery's system, but he's also been treated pretty badly. "We" wanted him, signed him on loan and then bar a few minutes haven't even played him - it's not a good look for him or for us.
Of course it isn't but a player joining a new club, not playing much and leaving quietly a year later isn't unique. Yes the loan with an obligation bit changes it slightly but from the perspective of the player it's not particularly rare for a transfer to just not work out. In truth he's probably in a better situation of being able to go back either next month or in the summer and try again. If he were here permanently already and wasn't getting games he'd be in a far worse spot with us needing to avoid taking too much of a loss on his fee and probably just loaning him out a couple of times ourselves.
I think the whole thing is more a case of mistakes being made all round in the rush to try to get the deal over the line in the last few hours, this is a big part of why I hate us leaving things as late as we have for the last 2 windows.
-
6 years ago today. Villa 5, Liverpool U11s 0
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/50723225
In a 'Facebook Memory' which popped up today, I was telling a Liverpool supporting mate how impressed I was with a young player called........Harvey Elliott ::)
-
Obviously we cant have a £35 million squad player
If that was it, how would one explain Maatsen last season?
-
Obviously we cant have a £35 million squad player
If that was it, how would one explain Maatsen last season?
Because he was part of the Villa / Chelsea / Kellyman PSR management system.
-
Yes, so was a similar "exotic football instrument".
-
Liverpool could play hardball and say "tough shit, your problem, soz" - purely because if they accept him back, he can't play anywhere else until next season
-
But that doesn't help them much, as the player's value would decline after a period of perma-benching (at best).
-
I tried to post on Sunday on the match thread - but then someone was a bit rude - but Elliott’s absence from even the bench now suggests we are in discussions with Liverpool to take him back. We certainly would have room for him otherwise.
-
I tried to post on Sunday on the match thread - but then someone was a bit rude - but Elliott’s absence from even the bench now suggests we are in discussions with Liverpool to take him back. We certainly would have room for him otherwise.
Cod piece face.
-
I tried to post on Sunday on the match thread - but then someone was a bit rude - but Elliott’s absence from even the bench now suggests we are in discussions with Liverpool to take him back. We certainly would have room for him otherwise.
I felt the final straw was him missing from the last Europa match rather then the league one as we have the ability to put more on the bench in those matches then in the Prem and he had missed out on matchday squads in the past.
-
Liverpool could play hardball and say "tough shit, your problem, soz" - purely because if they accept him back, he can't play anywhere else until next season
Even if that happens, it’s still better for us to just pay him until June 30th, not play him, and avoid paying £30/35m for a player Unai clearly does not rate (or at least would rather spend that money elsewhere).
-
Liverpool could play hardball and say "tough shit, your problem, soz" - purely because if they accept him back, he can't play anywhere else until next season
Even if that happens, it’s still better for us to just pay him until June 30th, not play him, and avoid paying £30/35m for a player Unai clearly does not rate (or at least would rather spend that money elsewhere).
Indeed. The current position for Liverpool, if they say "no thanks" in January, is that we don't play him for the rest of the season, we just pay his wages while he sits in the stands, and he goes back to Liverpool in the summer as a depreciated asset because we don't trigger his release clause.
In that situation, absolutely no one wins. We all lose. Liverpool get zero transfer revenue and a player back next summer worth less than he is today. We don't get to use the player, despite paying his wages. And the player himself loses a year of his career. It's a bad situation all around.
But if we can come to some sort of commercial arrangement where Liverpool DO take him back, he can at least fight for minutes in Salah's AFCON absence, maybe get a few appearances to keep his value high if they get a few injuries or long cup runs. It will cost us to do that, definitely, but if the cost is less than all of his wages for the rest of the year, then it's a deal worth doing. Personally, if they were willing to take him back I'd be willing to pay all of his wages for the rest of the season at the very least, just to free up a loan slot that we maybe CAN use.
Another alternative is we negotiate away the buy-clause, and simply pay a loan fee for the season, so he can play in the second half of the season, but we're not obliged to buy him in the June. But honestly, I think we risk a demotivated player in that circumstance, so it's almost as bad as having him here not playing.
If the club can do some sort of miracle deal where we can just hand him back and pay nothing, I will be both amazed, and hugely impressed - but honestly, I hope as much for Harvey's sake that the clubs find a way to at least give him a CHANCE of playing in the second half of the season. I have a lot of sympathy for the kid's current predicament.
-
Liverpool could play hardball and say "tough shit, your problem, soz" - purely because if they accept him back, he can't play anywhere else until next season
Even if that happens, it’s still better for us to just pay him until June 30th, not play him, and avoid paying £30/35m for a player Unai clearly does not rate (or at least would rather spend that money elsewhere).
Indeed. The current position for Liverpool, if they say "no thanks" in January, is that we don't play him for the rest of the season, we just pay his wages while he sits in the stands, and he goes back to Liverpool in the summer as a depreciated asset because we don't trigger his release clause.
In that situation, absolutely no one wins. We all lose. Liverpool get zero transfer revenue and a player back next summer worth less than he is today. We don't get to use the player, despite paying his wages. And the player himself loses a year of his career. It's a bad situation all around.
But if we can come to some sort of commercial arrangement where Liverpool DO take him back, he can at least fight for minutes in Salah's AFCON absence, maybe get a few appearances to keep his value high if they get a few injuries or long cup runs. It will cost us to do that, definitely, but if the cost is less than all of his wages for the rest of the year, then it's a deal worth doing. Personally, if they were willing to take him back I'd be willing to pay all of his wages for the rest of the season at the very least, just to free up a loan slot that we maybe CAN use.
Another alternative is we negotiate away the buy-clause, and simply pay a loan fee for the season, so he can play in the second half of the season, but we're not obliged to buy him in the June. But honestly, I think we risk a demotivated player in that circumstance, so it's almost as bad as having him here not playing.
If the club can do some sort of miracle deal where we can just hand him back and pay nothing, I will be both amazed, and hugely impressed - but honestly, I hope as much for Harvey's sake that the clubs find a way to at least give him a CHANCE of playing in the second half of the season. I have a lot of sympathy for the kid's current predicament.
Well said, Smithy.
-
Yeah, smartly laid-out. Smithy for Moderator!
-
It's such a shame as he has the same kind of tenacity as Buendia which would come in handy late on in games and as the season goes on, we will probably pick up knocks. As unlikley as it seems, I hope something can be sorted as I think he'd be belting player here.
-
Now you’ve sort this saga out Smithy, please can you address the Watkins thread.
-
I feel sorry for the lad it’s not his fault he’s been caught up in an unknown situation
It’s definitely more than him simply not being good enough because we’ve got Guesand wobbling about clearly not being good enough, and we know he’s a useful player as he’s proved at Liverpool
Even if it is the reason someone fucked up badly in the recruitment area and has cost us lot of money plus we’ve not got another player which would be useful in his position or any other
-
Now you’ve sort this saga out Smithy, please can you address the Watkins thread.
He'll get to it at the weekend, he's busy sorting out the Russia-Ukraine conflict atm.
-
I feel sorry for the lad it’s not his fault he’s been caught up in an unknown situation
It’s definitely more than him simply not being good enough because we’ve got Guesand wobbling about clearly not being good enough, and we know he’s a useful player as he’s proved at Liverpool
Even if it is the reason someone fucked up badly in the recruitment area and has cost us lot of money plus we’ve not got another player which would be useful in his position or any other
Agree 100% and said this the other week.
Credit to him for not doing a "Bruno" or a "Mo" and airing his grievances in public.
-
Liverpool could play hardball and say "tough shit, your problem, soz" - purely because if they accept him back, he can't play anywhere else until next season
Even if that happens, it’s still better for us to just pay him until June 30th, not play him, and avoid paying £30/35m for a player Unai clearly does not rate (or at least would rather spend that money elsewhere).
Indeed. The current position for Liverpool, if they say "no thanks" in January, is that we don't play him for the rest of the season, we just pay his wages while he sits in the stands, and he goes back to Liverpool in the summer as a depreciated asset because we don't trigger his release clause.
In that situation, absolutely no one wins. We all lose. Liverpool get zero transfer revenue and a player back next summer worth less than he is today. We don't get to use the player, despite paying his wages. And the player himself loses a year of his career. It's a bad situation all around.
But if we can come to some sort of commercial arrangement where Liverpool DO take him back, he can at least fight for minutes in Salah's AFCON absence, maybe get a few appearances to keep his value high if they get a few injuries or long cup runs. It will cost us to do that, definitely, but if the cost is less than all of his wages for the rest of the year, then it's a deal worth doing. Personally, if they were willing to take him back I'd be willing to pay all of his wages for the rest of the season at the very least, just to free up a loan slot that we maybe CAN use.
Another alternative is we negotiate away the buy-clause, and simply pay a loan fee for the season, so he can play in the second half of the season, but we're not obliged to buy him in the June. But honestly, I think we risk a demotivated player in that circumstance, so it's almost as bad as having him here not playing.
If the club can do some sort of miracle deal where we can just hand him back and pay nothing, I will be both amazed, and hugely impressed - but honestly, I hope as much for Harvey's sake that the clubs find a way to at least give him a CHANCE of playing in the second half of the season. I have a lot of sympathy for the kid's current predicament.
Smithy analysis will be studied for years to come - its like "The Prisoner Dilemma".
-
Now you’ve sort this saga out Smithy, please can you address the Watkins thread.
He'll get to it at the weekend, he's busy sorting out the Russia-Ukraine conflict atm.
He needs to learn which priorities are more demanding!
-
Pretty sure his contract and that between us and Liverpool covers all possibilities.
-
What would a club pay for him next summer? i reckon it’s now closer to £25m than £35m unless he has a storming 2026. Therefore it is in Liverpool’s interests to renegotiate the deal. The salah thing also changes the dynamic, as he could be off in January, and Elliot was previously his understudy.
-
It’s not playing him has put out a very public message that Elliott isn’t worth £30-35m. I think it’s in Liverpool’s interest to take him back ASAP because the longer he hangs around not playing for us, the stronger that message becomes.
That’s the thing. Maybe we’re paying his wages, but it’s knocking down his transfer fee by being at us too and probably knocking it down by more than us paying his wages are saving.
-
Maybe we'll try to put in a very low bid to buy him.
-
If you were him, would you want to sign for us?
-
If you were him, would you want to sign for us?
I suppose it depends on what’s being said to him at the club.
I can’t see the club, whether it be the likes of Emery or Vidigany not communicating with him
-
If you were him, would you want to sign for us?
I suppose it depends on what’s being said to him at the club.
I can’t see the club, whether it be the likes of Emery or Vidigany not communicating with him
But whatever is being said privately, he knows with pretty much nailed-on certainty that we don't think he's worth what we agreed to pay for him. Otherwise we'd be making that happen.
-
Isn't it rather a question of where we spend the money rather than him being worth the money?
-
If you were him, would you want to sign for us?
Yes definitely!
Oh, you said if I were him, no ****ing way! He’s been hung out to dry really (unless he’s been acting the twat behind th scenes but there’s no evidence of that). If I were him I’d be royally pissed off.
-
That said, presumably the initial deal was agreed on the basis that he would sign if we met the fee, with wages and suchlike also pre-agreed. No idea if it would invalidate those provisions if we renegotiate the price. Moot point though, IMO. I reckon he will be going back one way or another.
-
Will Isak’s injury help us get Elliott back to Liverpool? They’ll be needing bodies with Salah away as well
-
The lad has a cameo part in the official Christmas video.
-
Will Isak’s injury help us get Elliott back to Liverpool? They’ll be needing bodies with Salah away as well
Bodies?
This regime is far worse than Lamberts. At least they were only thrown in a pretend bomb squad.
-
If they don’t want him, could we renegotiate the terms so we could play him and not have to buy him. Would that help us and Liverpool to protect their asset?
-
Will Isak’s injury help us get Elliott back to Liverpool? They’ll be needing bodies with Salah away as well
Bodies?
Should be fine as long as it doesn't involve Morgz.
-
They'll take him back, and quite soon into Jan too. We'll end up paying a percentage of his wage until the end of season as part of the deal but it'll be good for all concerned and be one less distraction for us in what could be a cracking 2nd half to the season.
-
If they don’t want him, could we renegotiate the terms so we could play him and not have to buy him. Would that help us and Liverpool to protect their asset?
Emery clearly isn't going to play him.
-
It seems to have got to the point now where we don’t want to risk him being injured.
-
There’s something in The Athletic about us not wanting to pay £5m to terminate the loan apparently.
-
There’s something in The Athletic about us not wanting to pay £5m to terminate the loan apparently.
£5m would make his appearance in the Xmas advert one of the most expensive cameos in film history.
-
It's really sad. I said to the wife when we signed him that for £35m he will prove to be our best signing since SJM... I also told her I was gonna plunder the bookies on boxing day on the horses. Anyone wanting any predictions for anything.. Don't ask me.
-
It's really sad. I said to the wife when we signed him that for £35m he will prove to be our best signing since SJM... I also told her I was gonna plunder the bookies on boxing day on the horses. Anyone wanting any predictions for anything.. Don't ask me.
I bet she was eating out of your hand after a charm offensive like that.
-
There’s something in The Athletic about us not wanting to pay £5m to terminate the loan apparently.
£5m would make his appearance in the Xmas advert one of the most expensive cameos in film history.
Yeah, it must be cheaper to pay his wages and maybe just use him in the Easter egg advert. Either way we’re off the hook for the £35m which hopefully we can spend better this time.
Obviously he’s on a very well compensated furlough, but I still feel for the kid.
-
How many games has he played? Emergency injury option for remainder of the season, rather than pay 5m. Reckon he'll be on the bench Tuesday.
-
How many loans are allowed? I saw something about two at any one time, but last year we had three.
-
Two domestic, an extra four international, a maximum of six overall.
-
Removed - said the same thing as the one above
-
^^ Cheers chaps.
Might be worth paying the cancellation fee if we’ve got someone else lined up then.
-
why did we take him in the 1st place ?
-
Because we thought we could get someone in to play instead of Buendia and not have to pay for them until next year. Then a mix of either the realisation of us having to account for Elliot earlier then expected, the renaissance of Buendia or the realisation from Emery that Elliot wouldn't fit into his style all occurred.
-
We expected to move Buendia on and instead he's had the best comeback since Lazarus. Also, Harvey might be a bit dumber and not understanding what Unai wants.
-
Think this is close to the truth, Emery did give him a couple of cameos early but this is a manager who has taken several players and improved them out of sight. Just maybe he didn't see any upside with him.
-
why did we take him in the 1st place ?
Maybe he thought there was something he could mould into the type of player he wanted or thought he could be but Elliot wasn’t responding to his methods.
-
Can't he just go away now? Nothing against the lad but the constant whine of media chat is dull. "Will he go back in January?" Well if Liverpool have any respect for their players they'll have a taxi waiting outside his house on Jan 1st.
-
He’s basically a round peg in a square hole. It’s not his fault, but Villa are also correct not committing half their transfer budget on a player that doesn’t fit the system.
-
It's got to be financial I think. I can't believe Emery wouldn't either want to use him or find a way to use him if he could.
-
I reckon if we cannot send him back to Liverpool we will try to negotiate out of the purchase obligation. That way we can use him as needed without the concerns of having to lash out £35M.
-
Some of the lower and mid table teams looking for proven PL value could be interested - likes of Fulham, Everton, West Ham, Leeds, etc. Would think that more likely than him returning to a Liverpool shirt.
-
Some of the lower and mid table teams looking for proven PL value could be interested - likes of Fulham, Everton, West Ham, Leeds, etc. Would think that more likely than him returning to a Liverpool shirt.
He can't play for anyone but us or Liverpool until next season.
-
That’s right, he came on as a last minute sub for them in August? Very silly, that.
-
Some of the lower and mid table teams looking for proven PL value could be interested - likes of Fulham, Everton, West Ham, Leeds, etc. Would think that more likely than him returning to a Liverpool shirt.
He can't play for anyone but us or Liverpool until next season.
I wonder how many more times we will need to post that out this season? (Ignoring the slightly tiresome already-know-the-answer-but-posting-it-anyway-attempts of course).
Edit: Not suggesting eye-digress is in the latter camp.
-
That’s right, he came on as a last minute sub for them in August? Very silly, that.
Liverpool probably did it so he could say goodbye to the fans with the assumption he would never be back for a few years. TBH we all thought it was a decent deal at the time as well until it was found out that 10 games triggered the transfer onto the books for the Prem and Europa when it happens rather then the end of the season.
-
Some of the lower and mid table teams looking for proven PL value could be interested - likes of Fulham, Everton, West Ham, Leeds, etc. Would think that more likely than him returning to a Liverpool shirt.
He can't play for anyone but us or Liverpool until next season.
I wonder how many more times we will need to post that out this season? (Ignoring the slightly tiresome already-know-the-answer-but-posting-it-anyway-attempts of course).
Edit: Not suggesting eye-digress is in the latter camp.
Except he could be sold so it’s not accurate anyway!
-
Some of the lower and mid table teams looking for proven PL value could be interested - likes of Fulham, Everton, West Ham, Leeds, etc. Would think that more likely than him returning to a Liverpool shirt.
He can't play for anyone but us or Liverpool until next season.
I wonder how many more times we will need to post that out this season? (Ignoring the slightly tiresome already-know-the-answer-but-posting-it-anyway-attempts of course).
Edit: Not suggesting eye-digress is in the latter camp.
Except he could be sold so it’s not accurate anyway!
Which bit isn't accurate?
-
That he can’t play for anybody but us or Liverpool.
He can be sold to another Club if he returns to Liverpool.
-
That he can’t play for anybody but us or Liverpool.
He can be sold to another Club if he returns to Liverpool.
He could, but he wouldn't be able to play for them until next season.
So they're probably not going to sign someone and pay him for nine months for very little return.
-
I suspect based on nothing but my overactive imagination and current sleep deprivation-induced madness, that …
Emery agreed to sign Elliott on loan. Liverpool wanted rid permanently. Monchi was put in charge of negotiations and for some reason accepted the 10 game clause.
We’ve taken a look at him, decided there’s better ways to spend £35m considering he was mainly being brought in as a squad player / rotation option.
Our main leverage on Liverpool is in making it perfectly obvious that we’re not playing him again this season. If he makes the odd appearance they might choose to chance it on the basis we’d pay his wages and might inadvertently take him off their hands. If we don’t even let him on the subs bench it’s pretty obvious that he’d be better off making a couple of subs appearances or FA Cup starts with them than rotting away with us, so we’ll have a much stronger case for him to be sent back in January.
It’s probably in his best interests now for that to happen, it’s in our best interest to free up a loan space, and it’s in Liverpool’s best interests given the alternative is for him to not play competitive football for the best part of 12 months.
-
Perhaps it's that 10 percent of me that's actually a nice guy but I do honestly feel sorry for him in all this.
-
What if another club signs him, but then loans him to someone else with an option to buy. I bet he could play then!
-
I can't help but feel we've been twats about it all.
-
We're out of order.
-
We should be docked points.
-
I hope he’s ok and understands the strategy, whatever it is.
-
I can't help but feel we've been twats about it all.
I feel for the lad, he’s ended up with the shitty end of the stick. But we could’ve easily been shafted by Liverpool’s clause. It’s them who’ve created the situation.
-
We're out of order.
Why? Because we won't play somebody who isn't as good as those ahead of him and not worth the money we'd have to pay?
I do feel sorry for Elliot, but he's obviously not worth the money.
-
It's not ideal but we're doing what we think is best for us. Liverpool will do that many times in the future, and no doubt Elliott will as well. He hasn't played for a few months and has earnt a fortune, i'm sure he's doing fine. I do hope we've spoken to him though about why etc.
-
I can't help but feel we've been twats about it all.
I feel for the lad, he’s ended up with the shitty end of the stick. But we could’ve easily been shafted by Liverpool’s clause. It’s them who’ve created the situation.
It's not. They wanted to sell him in the summer. We wanted to buy him but needed to piss about with clauses because of our sailing-close-to-the-wind accounting. They were just as happy taking £30m from Leipzig last summer but agreed to structure the deal to make it work for us.
We've now made the best of the situation, so good for us. But if there is a bad guy in this (and for now, it looks like we'll come out of it well, so I couldn't care less if we are), then it's us not them.
-
We're out of order.
Why? Because we won't play somebody who isn't as good as those ahead of him and not worth the money we'd have to pay?
I do feel sorry for Elliot, but he's obviously not worth the money.
I don't think we have much evidence of his worth one way or the other.
-
What if another club signs him, but then loans him to someone else with an option to buy. I bet he could play then!
Yes. Get Fulham to sign him in January and loan him back to us for the second half of the season, with us covering most of his wages. Liverpool make the sale now, we have an extra body for the run-in, Harvey gets another PL Winners medal, and Fulham have an improved player in the summer who's had another 6 months of coaching under El Maestro. It's a win for all involved.
-
What if another club signs him, but then loans him to someone else with an option to buy. I bet he could play then!
Yes. Get Fulham to sign him in January and loan him back to us for the second half of the season, with us covering most of his wages. Liverpool make the sale now, we have an extra body for the run-in, Harvey gets another PL Winners medal, and Fulham have an improved player in the summer who's had another 6 months of coaching under El Maestro. It's a win for all involved.
Didn't Chelsea cause a law change by doing that a few years ago? Can't remember who it was but I'm pretty sure they made a signing or 2 and immediately loaned them out to another premier league team and the loophole got closed straight away.
-
I can't help but feel we've been twats about it all.
I feel for the lad, he’s ended up with the shitty end of the stick. But we could’ve easily been shafted by Liverpool’s clause. It’s them who’ve created the situation.
It's not. They wanted to sell him in the summer. We wanted to buy him but needed to piss about with clauses because of our sailing-close-to-the-wind accounting. They were just as happy taking £30m from Leipzig last summer but agreed to structure the deal to make it work for us.
We've now made the best of the situation, so good for us. But if there is a bad guy in this (and for now, it looks like we'll come out of it well, so I couldn't care less if we are), then it's us not them.
I wouldn't say it's as clear cut as that, I doubt it was us inserting the '10 games compulsory purchase' clause knowing the buying club is walking a financial tightrope.
-
why did we take him in the 1st place ?
I generally think that Emery had written off Buendia, so we needed an addition to the squad.
-
I do lean towards algy's thinking that the manager agreed to the loan and Monchi, maybe pressed by time, money and options agreed to the clause, and I reckon that was the main reason he went when he did.
-
What if another club signs him, but then loans him to someone else with an option to buy. I bet he could play then!
Yes. Get Fulham to sign him in January and loan him back to us for the second half of the season, with us covering most of his wages. Liverpool make the sale now, we have an extra body for the run-in, Harvey gets another PL Winners medal, and Fulham have an improved player in the summer who's had another 6 months of coaching under El Maestro. It's a win for all involved.
we can't do that - as the loan would be terminated by the transfer from Liverpool to Fulham, and we've had our maximum of 2 domestic loans, so we couldn't loan him again, as it would be a third domestic loan.
-
The PFA should work to try and have those kind of clauses banned in deals in my opinion.
-
I do lean towards algy's thinking that the manager agreed to the loan and Monchi, maybe pressed by time, money and options agreed to the clause, and I reckon that was the main reason he went when he did.
Yes, agreed.
I wonder at what price we might agree to buy him. Perhaps if the loan-to-buy price dropped from £35m to - let's say - £20m, do you think the club might say "it's worth a punt and we'll need MF talent in the run-in" or is Emery simply not fancying him at all? We do know that Elliott has capabilities, and 5 months of being exposed to Emery's approach must have rubbed off in some way, so maybe his contribution would be pretty valuable in the second half of the season.
Having said all that, he's almost-certainly going back to 'pool, you'd think!
-
The bottom line is, the contractual situation left the position we are in now as a possibly outcome ie that we wouldn’t want him for the money so he’d be left in limbo. This idea that it has suddenly come as a surprise to player or either club is poorly thought out. The payer should be angry with his advisors. Equally we should be mad at whoever agreed £35 million because even as his best that’s a stretch for the lad.
-
On a side note, we could actually do with him on the bench tonight…
-
On a side note, we could actually do with him on the bench tonight…
It would be great and entirely in keeping with this season if he was and came on with half an hour left and won the game for us.
-
What if another club signs him, but then loans him to someone else with an option to buy. I bet he could play then!
Yes. Get Fulham to sign him in January and loan him back to us for the second half of the season, with us covering most of his wages. Liverpool make the sale now, we have an extra body for the run-in, Harvey gets another PL Winners medal, and Fulham have an improved player in the summer who's had another 6 months of coaching under El Maestro. It's a win for all involved.
we can't do that - as the loan would be terminated by the transfer from Liverpool to Fulham, and we've had our maximum of 2 domestic loans, so we couldn't loan him again, as it would be a third domestic loan.
I believe it is not a maximum of 2 loans a season, but two at the same time. So if we lost Elliot back to Liverpool and then loaned someone else in from a premier league team, it should be fine. Not stating the above option would be valid as a purchased player can't be loaned in the premier league in the same window but we could get someone else in up to a maximum of four domestic loans.
-
What if another club signs him, but then loans him to someone else with an option to buy. I bet he could play then!
Yes. Get Fulham to sign him in January and loan him back to us for the second half of the season, with us covering most of his wages. Liverpool make the sale now, we have an extra body for the run-in, Harvey gets another PL Winners medal, and Fulham have an improved player in the summer who's had another 6 months of coaching under El Maestro. It's a win for all involved.
we can't do that - as the loan would be terminated by the transfer from Liverpool to Fulham, and we've had our maximum of 2 domestic loans, so we couldn't loan him again, as it would be a third domestic loan.
I believe it is not a maximum of 2 loans a season, but two at the same time. So if we lost Elliot back to Liverpool and then loaned someone else in from a premier league team, it should be fine. Not stating the above option would be valid as a purchased player can't be loaned in the premier league in the same window but we could get someone else in up to a maximum of four domestic loans.
You’d imagine if Liverpool wanted that deal then they could just remove the compulsory purchase clause from the loan deal with us and then agree with Fulham to flog him to them at the end of the season.
-
I can't help but feel we've been twats about it all.
I feel for the lad, he’s ended up with the shitty end of the stick. But we could’ve easily been shafted by Liverpool’s clause. It’s them who’ve created the situation.
It's not. They wanted to sell him in the summer. We wanted to buy him but needed to piss about with clauses because of our sailing-close-to-the-wind accounting. They were just as happy taking £30m from Leipzig last summer but agreed to structure the deal to make it work for us.
We've now made the best of the situation, so good for us. But if there is a bad guy in this (and for now, it looks like we'll come out of it well, so I couldn't care less if we are), then it's us not them.
I wouldn't say it's as clear cut as that, I doubt it was us inserting the '10 games compulsory purchase' clause knowing the buying club is walking a financial tightrope.
They wanted to sell him, and coming off the U21s success was the time to extract maximum value from selling him. The ten game thing is very deliberately set at that low level to make sure that we ended up buying him. This wasn't intended as one of those "see if you like this player, and then you can buy him if it turns out he's good" type deals, this was a "you're going to buy this player and the deal will be structured to make sure that you do" type deals.
More fool them, as it didn't work out as planned - to our (probable) advantage and their, and his detriment. If they could go back to the summer, Elliott would be playing in the Bundesliga right now and Liverpool would be £30m better off.
-
I’m probably missing something important, but this deal looks awful for every party. We have a player we can’t : won’t play who is no doubt picking up hefty wages, Liverpool have a player who must’ve dropped in value fun quite a lot, and probably worst of all, he isn’t getting a game. It’s been a massive fuck up however you look at it.
-
I can't help but feel we've been twats about it all.
I feel for the lad, he’s ended up with the shitty end of the stick. But we could’ve easily been shafted by Liverpool’s clause. It’s them who’ve created the situation.
It's not. They wanted to sell him in the summer. We wanted to buy him but needed to piss about with clauses because of our sailing-close-to-the-wind accounting. They were just as happy taking £30m from Leipzig last summer but agreed to structure the deal to make it work for us.
We've now made the best of the situation, so good for us. But if there is a bad guy in this (and for now, it looks like we'll come out of it well, so I couldn't care less if we are), then it's us not them.
I wouldn't say it's as clear cut as that, I doubt it was us inserting the '10 games compulsory purchase' clause knowing the buying club is walking a financial tightrope.
They wanted to sell him, and coming off the U21s success was the time to extract maximum value from selling him. The ten game thing is very deliberately set at that low level to make sure that we ended up buying him. This wasn't intended as one of those "see if you like this player, and then you can buy him if it turns out he's good" type deals, this was a "you're going to buy this player and the deal will be structured to make sure that you do" type deals.
More fool them, as it didn't work out as planned - to our (probable) advantage and their, and his detriment. If they could go back to the summer, Elliott would be playing in the Bundesliga right now and Liverpool would be £30m better off.
Then why agree to/put the clause in at all? They could have just sold him to Leipzig without any worries of him not playing 10 games. Did we offer more than Leipzig (ie was it £35m and not £30m)?
-
The bottom line is, the contractual situation left the position we are in now as a possibly outcome ie that we wouldn’t want him for the money so he’d be left in limbo. This idea that it has suddenly come as a surprise to player or either club is poorly thought out. The payer should be angry with his advisors. Equally we should be mad at whoever agreed £35 million because even as his best that’s a stretch for the lad.
I'm not sure it is a stretch given his undoubted talent and what we paid for Guessand.
-
He may have preferred moving to a club down the road rather than in another country. We wanted to sign him, couldn't pay the full fee, did this deal assuming no problem as we wanted him, Liverpool agreed, and then a combination of Buendia hitting form and i'm guessing Elliott not clicking with us means we no longer want to sign him. It happens and everyone involved will survive just fine. If anyone is then it's us that are the baddies but meh, i'd expect Liverpool to do the same if the situation was the other way round and i'd expect Elliott to say no thanks if he wasn't happy here.
-
What if another club signs him, but then loans him to someone else with an option to buy. I bet he could play then!
Yes. Get Fulham to sign him in January and loan him back to us for the second half of the season, with us covering most of his wages. Liverpool make the sale now, we have an extra body for the run-in, Harvey gets another PL Winners medal, and Fulham have an improved player in the summer who's had another 6 months of coaching under El Maestro. It's a win for all involved.
we can't do that - as the loan would be terminated by the transfer from Liverpool to Fulham, and we've had our maximum of 2 domestic loans, so we couldn't loan him again, as it would be a third domestic loan.
I believe it is not a maximum of 2 loans a season, but two at the same time. So if we lost Elliot back to Liverpool and then loaned someone else in from a premier league team, it should be fine. Not stating the above option would be valid as a purchased player can't be loaned in the premier league in the same window but we could get someone else in up to a maximum of four domestic loans.
yeah you're right
-
If Liverpool are that bothered they can remove the compulsory purchase part of the proposed deal and we'll have him on the bench. They thought they could have our pants down on a large fee because of all the restrictions put on us and Emery has played hard and not selected him.
Fantastic management by The Don again. It's a shame for Elliot as he's done the right thing and looked for a move to get more playing time, more power to him. It hasn't worked out for various reason but I hope he does well in the future, just not against us.
-
Taken from excerpts from the press conference today via Tanswell and Townley.
Unai Emery admits we decided two months ago against signing Harvey Elliott permanently, explaining that his departure would free up space to strengthen the squad.
Emery: "We have the issue with Harvey. I am respecting him all we can because he’s a very good professional, very respectful but the situation we have is something I must take a decision on but not damage the person. He’s a very good person and player and deserves the best."
It’s a ludicrous situation as a club, that we signed a player, spent whatever had to make the deal and since, and month or so later decided it was a bad deal and essentially stuffed him back in the box like a return item at a store. Not a good look for us and a shame for the player. In the end he will go back and we will move on but it’s not how business should be done.
-
I don’t think it’s that ludicrous to be honest. We had a mad panic/trolley dash after the 0-3 v Palace, Buendia didn’t go and was obviously a better fit over the next few weeks, and we felt we could spend £35m better elsewhere. Don’t forget that until the last few days of the window we were still hoping to sign Asensio or Paquetta, both fell through and we had to quickly reconsider things.
It’s been obvious for months what was happening. I’m only confused by others’ confusion.
-
Is there zero chance of him making a start? Could find we've missed out on something, which I'm pretty sure we have.
-
I don’t think it’s that ludicrous to be honest.
Give me another example where we have done that?
-
Is there zero chance of him making a start? Could find we've missed out on something, which I'm pretty sure we have.
You think we’d have done better with him playing instead of McGinn and/or Buendia?
-
Taken from excerpts from the press conference today via Tanswell and Townley.
Unai Emery admits we decided two months ago against signing Harvey Elliott permanently, explaining that his departure would free up space to strengthen the squad.
Emery: "We have the issue with Harvey. I am respecting him all we can because he’s a very good professional, very respectful but the situation we have is something I must take a decision on but not damage the person. He’s a very good person and player and deserves the best."
It’s a ludicrous situation as a club, that we signed a player, spent whatever had to make the deal and since, and month or so later decided it was a bad deal and essentially stuffed him back in the box like a return item at a store. Not a good look for us and a shame for the player. In the end he will go back and we will move on but it’s not how business should be done.
On the flip side ludicrous for Liverpool who were expecting to send him out on loan to play him at the start of the season therefore creating a situation where if the first loan didn’t work this would happen
Whoever inserted the 10 game clause gets a round of applause because some of us clubs can’t go spunking 400m up the wall and then look to bang out another 100m+ 3 months later because the first set of toys haven’t been great.
Hope he gets to play somewhere and fulfils his potential one day
-
What if another club signs him, but then loans him to someone else with an option to buy. I bet he could play then!
Yes. Get Fulham to sign him in January and loan him back to us for the second half of the season, with us covering most of his wages. Liverpool make the sale now, we have an extra body for the run-in, Harvey gets another PL Winners medal, and Fulham have an improved player in the summer who's had another 6 months of coaching under El Maestro. It's a win for all involved.
we can't do that - as the loan would be terminated by the transfer from Liverpool to Fulham, and we've had our maximum of 2 domestic loans, so we couldn't loan him again, as it would be a third domestic loan.
I believe it is not a maximum of 2 loans a season, but two at the same time. So if we lost Elliot back to Liverpool and then loaned someone else in from a premier league team, it should be fine. Not stating the above option would be valid as a purchased player can't be loaned in the premier league in the same window but we could get someone else in up to a maximum of four domestic loans.
It’s 2 domestic loans at any one time isn’t it, hence us trying to terminate this loan to free up another?
-
I'm glad we found out he wasn't a fit for us before buying him. I wish him well but he's missed a few months of football and has been well paid, he's hardly had it hard.
-
Props to Deano, working hard to get him off our hands and fee up another loan for us, what a fucking hero that man is.
-
On the flip side ludicrous for Liverpool who were expecting to send him out on loan to play him at the start of the season therefore creating a situation where if the first loan didn’t work this would happen
It was a bit silly, but they weren't expecting to send him out on loan, they were expecting to sell him.
-
As I mentioned previously, they probably did it so he could say goodbye to the fans as he had been there for awhile. I still believe the ten games clause was the final bollock drop by Monchi with him telling the club it would be next summer we have to pay for him and then us realising about midway through Sept that no, as soon as he hit 10 games it is triggered. We get rid of Monchi, Elliot stops being played.
If this Charlotte thing happens, I wonder if Smith was given the heads up of what was needed when he was over here prior to Xmas. Elliot still won't be able to play until March though but it is that or maybe 4 appearances for us in May. It also depends on Liverpool as they might just leave him with us to affect the SCR of a "rival" for the whole season.
-
It also depends on Liverpool as they might just leave him with us to affect the SCR of a "rival" for the whole season.
I can’t see that being relevant. Well either keep him and pay his wages or send him back and probably pay his wages. Plus, if we don’t include him in the first-team squad he won’t count against SCR will he?
The more significant financial consideration is the freeing-up of the £35m that would have been accounted for.
-
I'm glad we found out he wasn't a fit for us before buying him. I wish him well but he's missed a few months of football and has been well paid, he's hardly had it hard.
Never even gave him a chance. Don't see him jumping out of tackles repeatedly like Sancho for example or stinking it out like Guessand has. But in Emery we trust. Just hope we have a first team signing in the wings rather than another PSR pawn...
-
It also depends on Liverpool as they might just leave him with us to affect the SCR of a "rival" for the whole season.
I can’t see that being relevant. Well either keep him and pay his wages or send him back and probably pay his wages. Plus, if we don’t include him in the first-team squad he won’t count against SCR will he?
The more significant financial consideration is the freeing-up of the £35m that would have been accounted for.
He currently does for Europe being as he is named in the squad. After Feb, I don't know. Not sure why we would continue paying his wages if we sent him back to Liverpool though, but also no sure what happens if Liverpool decide to say no, he is your player until May as he doesn't have a long term injury so we don't want him back until then as per the loan contract you signed.
-
It also depends on Liverpool as they might just leave him with us to affect the SCR of a "rival" for the whole season.
I can’t see that being relevant. Well either keep him and pay his wages or send him back and probably pay his wages. Plus, if we don’t include him in the first-team squad he won’t count against SCR will he?
The more significant financial consideration is the freeing-up of the £35m that would have been accounted for.
He currently does for Europe being as he is named in the squad. After Feb, I don't know. Not sure why we would continue paying his wages if we sent him back to Liverpool though, but also no sure what happens if Liverpool decide to say no, he is your player until May as he doesn't have a long term injury so we don't want him back until then as per the loan contract you signed.
Obviously we are paying his wages currently. If we don’t name him in the Europa League squad on Feb 1st I don’t think his wages, even if we are still paying him, will count towards UEFA SCR.
If he goes back to Liverpool we’ll effectively pay his wages by way of an early termination fee.
The Athletic are reporting that our January business is not contingent on Elliott. That’s because whatever else happens, it won’t include us triggering the clause, meaning we are off the hook for £35m that has already been accounted for.
-
Not sure why we would continue paying his wages if we sent him back to Liverpool though, but also no sure what happens if Liverpool decide to say no, he is your player until May as he doesn't have a long term injury so we don't want him back until then as per the loan contract you signed.
Well, that would be the result of what we negotiate with them. As things stand, we are on the hook to pay him the rest of the season and we want Liverpool to help us out by letting us send him back to free up a loan spot.
They're not going to help us out with those things without it being worth their while in doing so. Presumably the sort of thing that makes them say yes to having him back is us (at the very least) agreeing to the wages that we'd already signed up for.
-
Not sure why we would continue paying his wages if we sent him back to Liverpool though, but also no sure what happens if Liverpool decide to say no, he is your player until May as he doesn't have a long term injury so we don't want him back until then as per the loan contract you signed.
Well, that would be the result of what we negotiate with them. As things stand, we are on the hook to pay him the rest of the season and we want Liverpool to help us out by letting us send him back to free up a loan spot.
They're not going to help us out with those things without it being worth their while in doing so. Presumably the sort of thing that makes them say yes to having him back is us (at the very least) agreeing to the wages that we'd already signed up for.
plus a premium for us being able to free up a loan spot ...
-
Plus we're now a rival for a CL spot on account of them being shit.
-
I'm glad we found out he wasn't a fit for us before buying him. I wish him well but he's missed a few months of football and has been well paid, he's hardly had it hard.
Never even gave him a chance.
Big gamble to give a few more games to someone who hasn’t impressed in his few appearances or training when to do so would probably wipe out most, if not all, of your transfer budget.
-
Deano to the rescue? Being linked with a move to Charlotte FC in MLS.
https://x.com/TheAthleticFC/status/2007102739231162630?s=20
-
Start a thread!
-
Deano to the rescue? Being linked with a move to Charlotte FC in MLS.
https://x.com/TheAthleticFC/status/2007102739231162630?s=20
I just don't see that happening. In his prime, England U21 captain last summer and going to MLS? The wages aren't there and I would think his ambition is better than that, albeit probably dented at the moment.
-
I'm glad we found out he wasn't a fit for us before buying him. I wish him well but he's missed a few months of football and has been well paid, he's hardly had it hard.
Never even gave him a chance.
Big gamble to give a few more games to someone who hasn’t impressed in his few appearances or training when to do so would probably wipe out most, if not all, of your transfer budget.
Maybe, though it's no time to judge a player. Lots of Villa players have had very slow starts to their careers and turned it around spectacularly. Have to trust Emery on it I guess.
-
Well it’d be until the summer and he has very few options.
-
Deano to the rescue? Being linked with a move to Charlotte FC in MLS.
https://x.com/TheAthleticFC/status/2007102739231162630?s=20
I just don't see that happening. In his prime, England U21 captain last summer and going to MLS? The wages aren't there and I would think his ambition is better than that, albeit probably dented at the moment.
But they're one of the clubs who he could be loaned to and allowed to play matches for between now and next August.
And they're probably one of the best of a very bad bunch.
-
According to the Echo, we haven't even contacted Liverpool about trying to change the terms of the contract. If they removed the obligation to buy he may be our only midfielder available in a week or two, for Liverpool he gets a few games and makes it easier to sell in the summer.
-
According to the Echo, we haven't even contacted Liverpool about trying to change the terms of the contract. If they removed the obligation to buy he may be our only midfielder available in a week or two, for Liverpool he gets a few games and makes it easier to sell in the summer.
Jesus, this gets worse. If this is true we really haven't covered ourselves in glory here.
-
Oddly it's reported Roma are still obliged to pay the full season of the Bailey loan money regardless of termination or recall, so we could well be in the same boat with Elliott if he stays or not.
-
Oddly it's reported Roma are still obliged to pay the full season of the Bailey loan money regardless of termination or recall, so we could well be in the same boat with Elliott if he stays or not.
Yeah I don’t think that’s the main issue. Elliott being here and us not been willing to use him due to the clause means we can’t make anymore domestic loans.
-
Really has become an absolute farce this one.
Doesn’t look good on us for future loans especially loans with obligations.
Feel bad for Elliot, regardless of what we’re paying him per week to not play.
-
At least play him up until loan to buy obligation.
-
At least play him up until loan to buy obligation.
That ship has long sailed.
-
Paul Mortimer has more chance of making a return than this guy.
-
The Elliott to Deano's Charlotte maybe back on the cards
https://x.com/SkySportsNews/status/2014374053457350779?s=20
-
The Elliott to Deano's Charlotte maybe back on the cards
https://x.com/SkySportsNews/status/2014374053457350779?s=20
Can someone explain this for me please
"Dean Smith sees Harvey Elliott as a right half-space receiver, connecting underlaps and pinning the last line. Charlotte should set up a 3+2 rest defence behind him. On loan at Villa from Liverpool, using a DP slot is a tidy bit of business."
-
The Elliott to Deano's Charlotte maybe back on the cards
https://x.com/SkySportsNews/status/2014374053457350779?s=20
Can someone explain this for me please
"Dean Smith sees Harvey Elliott as a right half-space receiver, connecting underlaps and pinning the last line. Charlotte should set up a 3+2 rest defence behind him. On loan at Villa from Liverpool, using a DP slot is a tidy bit of business."
Fuck knows what right half space receiver is but Designated Player (DP) in the MLS is a player whose high salary and acquisition costs are largely exempt from the league's salary cap.
-
The Elliott to Deano's Charlotte maybe back on the cards
https://x.com/SkySportsNews/status/2014374053457350779?s=20
Can someone explain this for me please
"Dean Smith sees Harvey Elliott as a right half-space receiver, connecting underlaps and pinning the last line. Charlotte should set up a 3+2 rest defence behind him. On loan at Villa from Liverpool, using a DP slot is a tidy bit of business."
Fuck knows what right half space receiver is but Designated Player (DP) in the MLS is a player whose high salary and acquisition costs are largely exempt from the league's salary cap.
Thanks TV
-
The Elliott to Deano's Charlotte maybe back on the cards
https://x.com/SkySportsNews/status/2014374053457350779?s=20
Can someone explain this for me please
"Dean Smith sees Harvey Elliott as a right half-space receiver, connecting underlaps and pinning the last line. Charlotte should set up a 3+2 rest defence behind him. On loan at Villa from Liverpool, using a DP slot is a tidy bit of business."
He receives double penetration in the one slot, apparently.
(https://media.tenor.com/s8oCkef5j5kAAAAM/kenneth-williams-leespoons.gif)
-
He’s in the squad tomorrow
-
If he is and we have him for 4 games before the obligation kicks in. May as well see him play.
-
Whats gonna motovate him to perform? Has been treated horribly and i feel sorry for him
-
If he plays well he might get another game in about April. Goo on Harvey.
-
If he plays well he might get another game in about April. Goo on Harvey.
I do wonder (and hope) that we have come to a agreement to remove the clause. It benefits liverpool as he gets used and if does well another club may make a offer in summer. Gets them more money and helps us.
Who knows if he does brilliantly well for us emery might change his mind. Unlikely i know but this is football stranger things have happened
-
Why did we take him pay his wages and then not play him?
-
The Elliott to Deano's Charlotte maybe back on the cards
https://x.com/SkySportsNews/status/2014374053457350779?s=20
Can someone explain this for me please
"Dean Smith sees Harvey Elliott as a right half-space receiver, connecting underlaps and pinning the last line. Charlotte should set up a 3+2 rest defence behind him. On loan at Villa from Liverpool, using a DP slot is a tidy bit of business."
Fuck knows what right half space receiver is but Designated Player (DP) in the MLS is a player whose high salary and acquisition costs are largely exempt from the league's salary cap.
Well, I’d take the “right” in “right half-space receiver” as being the same kind of phrase as right in “he’s a right idiot” or “he’s a right twat”, so it’s clearly not complimentary as “right” before anything (“you’re a right jellyfish”) is insulting.
So it’s just down to what a half-space receiver means, although we know it’s not complimentary. I reckon half-space probably means something similar to dimwit. You know, a sandwich short of a picnic. 3 cans short of a six pack. A half-space.
“Receiver” probably just means that he orders loads shit off the internet, so he’s constantly getting packages that he’s having to sign for.
It’s the only logical conclusion to that phrase.
-
The right half space receiver might be related to the African Reverser and the Chelsea Bottle Thrower.
-
Liverpool could have shifted the goalposts a little to say 20 games, in the hope Elliot either plays and we'll enough to attract a different buyer, or well enough that we use him and he makes himself a nailed on buy. It makes much more sense for them to do that, than it does to leave him to not play.
-
He’s in the squad tomorrow
Yay! Source?
-
He’s in the squad tomorrow
Yay! Source?
Never mind that, what's his scoring record like against Newcastle?
-
How many games does he have left? Three? Best case is Liverpool bin the clause so that he can play some football. I wonder if them trying to catch us has anything to do with that.
Edit: I should read the thread first
-
Found it - our Percy, well our other Percy:
Aston Villa have included Liverpool-loanee Harvey Elliott in their squad for Sunday’s game at Newcastle.
Elliott has only featured five times under Emery, with his last appearance coming as a late substitute against Feyenoord in the Europa League on 2 October.
Yet injuries to Boubacar Kamara and John McGinn have resulted in the England under-21 international travelling for the game at St James’ Park.
Villa signed Elliott on loan from Liverpool on deadline day last summer with an agreement to sign him for £35m on a permanent deal if he reached 10 Premier League appearances.
Telegraph Sport understands five of those appearances have to be in the second half of this season for the deal to be triggered.
So we could have played him as much as we'd wanted before New Year's without worrying about him playing too many games to trigger the clause?!
-
The landscape has changed, perhaps our perspective on Elliott has too. If Liverpool won’t negotiate then maybe we’re better off playing him and if needs be, find a buyer in the summer. Wouldn’t be the first time we’ve flipped a player relatively quickly.
-
I’ve heard that the deal has been renegotiated to include an option as opposed to an obligation.
-
If that's the case (yes, and it could well be shite), that's really good news for him and us. Hopefully a clean slate and can be considered a loan now such as Rashford was last Jan - Do yourself proud and put yourself in the shop window.
-
This is all very weird.
-
Isn’t it just! We’re used to it now, but it’s mental.
-
Or just play him a total of 9 times
-
Found it - our Percy, well our other Percy:
Aston Villa have included Liverpool-loanee Harvey Elliott in their squad for Sunday’s game at Newcastle.
Elliott has only featured five times under Emery, with his last appearance coming as a late substitute against Feyenoord in the Europa League on 2 October.
Yet injuries to Boubacar Kamara and John McGinn have resulted in the England under-21 international travelling for the game at St James’ Park.
Villa signed Elliott on loan from Liverpool on deadline day last summer with an agreement to sign him for £35m on a permanent deal if he reached 10 Premier League appearances.
Telegraph Sport understands five of those appearances have to be in the second half of this season for the deal to be triggered.
So we could have played him as much as we'd wanted before New Year's without worrying about him playing too many games to trigger the clause?!
Or conversely, that a 6th appearance in the first half of the season could have triggered it, or at least taken us into a grey legal area. Which could explain why he was suddenly dumped from the squad - and the split with Monchi.
-
It’s like a new signing
-
With Abraham and Bailey's returns this month, nothing surprises me in terms of personnel at the moment
-
it's like a spin the wheel on who is in the squad
-
Found it - our Percy, well our other Percy:
Aston Villa have included Liverpool-loanee Harvey Elliott in their squad for Sunday’s game at Newcastle.
Elliott has only featured five times under Emery, with his last appearance coming as a late substitute against Feyenoord in the Europa League on 2 October.
Yet injuries to Boubacar Kamara and John McGinn have resulted in the England under-21 international travelling for the game at St James’ Park.
Villa signed Elliott on loan from Liverpool on deadline day last summer with an agreement to sign him for £35m on a permanent deal if he reached 10 Premier League appearances.
Telegraph Sport understands five of those appearances have to be in the second half of this season for the deal to be triggered.
So we could have played him as much as we'd wanted before New Year's without worrying about him playing too many games to trigger the clause?!
Or conversely, that a 6th appearance in the first half of the season could have triggered it, or at least taken us into a grey legal area. Which could explain why he was suddenly dumped from the squad - and the split with Monchi.
Actually, that makes more sense. But what a weird clause to agree to...
-
Well I suspect it’s because when it was agreed it was done with the full expectation it would be triggered.
-
Found it - our Percy, well our other Percy:
Aston Villa have included Liverpool-loanee Harvey Elliott in their squad for Sunday’s game at Newcastle.
Elliott has only featured five times under Emery, with his last appearance coming as a late substitute against Feyenoord in the Europa League on 2 October.
Yet injuries to Boubacar Kamara and John McGinn have resulted in the England under-21 international travelling for the game at St James’ Park.
Villa signed Elliott on loan from Liverpool on deadline day last summer with an agreement to sign him for £35m on a permanent deal if he reached 10 Premier League appearances.
Telegraph Sport understands five of those appearances have to be in the second half of this season for the deal to be triggered.
So we could have played him as much as we'd wanted before New Year's without worrying about him playing too many games to trigger the clause?!
Or conversely, that a 6th appearance in the first half of the season could have triggered it, or at least taken us into a grey legal area. Which could explain why he was suddenly dumped from the squad - and the split with Monchi.
Actually, that makes more sense. But what a weird clause to agree to...
The weirdness of it would explain Monchi’s fairly sudden departure, I guess?
“Weird” is putting it mildly, no? It’s criminal!
-
Well I suspect it’s because when it was agreed it was done with the full expectation it would be triggered.
The difference in him being on-loan and made permanent automatically at the end of the season to help with our PSR versus "You have 4/5 games in each half of the season to try before you buy" seemingly rendered such a clause almost pointless - except it looks like we're doing just that!
-
Actually, that makes more sense. But what a weird clause to agree to...
The weirdness of it would explain Monchi’s fairly sudden departure, I guess?
“Weird” is putting it mildly, no? It’s criminal!
I fully expect William Shatner to do a TV programme on it.
-
This is why I always now believe stories that say things like ‘Villa were in pole position to sign Lewandowski but Ollie Watkins has a clause in his contract that states all Polish internationals have to live next door but one to him and the neighbours refused to move house’. It’s like we’re trying to get in the ‘and finally…’ section of the local radio news.
-
This is why I always now believe stories that say things like ‘Villa were in pole position to sign Lewandowski but Ollie Watkins has a clause in his contract that states all Polish internationals have to live next door but one to him and the neighbours refused to move house’. It’s like we’re trying to get in the ‘and finally…’ section of the local radio news.
It was a goer but Polish tradition says you have to move in to the left of the man you're planning to usurp, the house next door but one on the right was available.
-
Rings true, Ollie's best friend at Villa is Mateusz Cash.
-
This is why I always now believe stories that say things like ‘Villa were in pole position to sign Lewandowski but Ollie Watkins has a clause in his contract that states all Polish internationals have to live next door but one to him and the neighbours refused to move house’. It’s like we’re trying to get in the ‘and finally…’ section of the local radio news.
Its the dog riding (not literally) the donkey story
-
The whole thing is stupid they should just remove the have to buy bit for the sake of the player. Currently everyone loses
-
It makes no sense - why would we be bringing him in from the cold now. It sounds like we could have played him every game in the first half of the season and in europe and still be safe
-
It makes no sense - why would we be bringing him in from the cold now. It sounds like we could have played him every game in the first half of the season and in europe and still be safe
On the other hand, we've waited until we had a proper injury crisis to use up the free appearances.
-
It makes no sense - why would we be bringing him in from the cold now. It sounds like we could have played him every game in the first half of the season and in europe and still be safe
On the other hand, we've waited until we had a proper injury crisis to use up the free appearances.
Yep, when he’s not fit and in no mood to do us any favours.
-
This is why I always now believe stories that say things like ‘Villa were in pole position to sign Lewandowski but Ollie Watkins has a clause in his contract that states all Polish internationals have to live next door but one to him and the neighbours refused to move house’. It’s like we’re trying to get in the ‘and finally…’ section of the local radio news.
Its the dog riding (not literally) the donkey story
Dog bites man, that's not news.
Dog riding a donkey - that's news.
-
It does make me wonder if Villa may be argued to be in breach of contract here, if only an implied term that the player would not be 'frozen out' of consideration for inclusion in games?
-
It makes no sense - why would we be bringing him in from the cold now. It sounds like we could have played him every game in the first half of the season and in europe and still be safe
On the other hand, we've waited until we had a proper injury crisis to use up the free appearances.
Yep, when he’s not fit and in no mood to do us any favours.
I mean, if you put it like that.
-
It does make me wonder if Villa may be argued to be in breach of contract here, if only an implied term that the player would not be 'frozen out' of consideration for inclusion in games?
I doubt it. There are lots of cases of players on loan not getting games at the loanee club and that all this is.
-
I guess we are just being pragmatic until we know the full extent of McGinn’s injury and get other cover in as required.
-
He's made the bench.
-
He's made the bench.
Carpentry skills as well. There's no end to Harvey's talents
-
It does make me wonder if Villa may be argued to be in breach of contract here, if only an implied term that the player would not be 'frozen out' of consideration for inclusion in games?
I doubt it. There are lots of cases of players on loan not getting games at the loanee club and that all this is.
I get that, but in this instance the reason the bloke has been excluded is that we effectively took immediate exception to a clause in the contract that we had just agreed to. And this is not an unknown 18 year old we have ramen on loan.
-
He's made the bench.
Carpentry skills as well. There's no end to Harvey's talents
It’s plane to see there’s talent in him.
-
It does make me wonder if Villa may be argued to be in breach of contract here, if only an implied term that the player would not be 'frozen out' of consideration for inclusion in games?
I doubt it. There are lots of cases of players on loan not getting games at the loanee club and that all this is.
I get that, but in this instance the reason the bloke has been excluded is that we effectively took immediate exception to a clause in the contract that we had just agreed to. And this is not an unknown 18 year old we have ramen on loan.
Let’s hope he provides the cutting edge we need
-
Not as good as Chris Wood.
-
He's made the bench.
Carpentry skills as well. There's no end to Harvey's talents
It’s plane to see there’s talent in him.
Let's just hope he's sharp. Wood be nice to see him contribute positively in some way.
-
Not as good as Chris Wood.
Or Jurrien Timber
-
Ever since he joined a splinter group in support of him over the club has been in existence.
-
Hope he plays today. Getting linked to likes of Loftus-Cheek....screw that and give the guy already at the club a chance.
-
Hope he plays today. Getting linked to likes of Loftus-Cheek....screw that and give the guy already at the club a chance.
Reminds me Screwfix sell 2 by fours.
-
Hope he plays today. Getting linked to likes of Loftus-Cheek....screw that and give the guy already at the club a chance.
Reminds me Screwfix sell 2 by fours.
If he gets on I hope he ties their left back in knots.
-
Hope he plays today. Getting linked to likes of Loftus-Cheek....screw that and give the guy already at the club a chance.
Reminds me Screwfix sell 2 by fours.
If he gets on I hope he ties their left back in knots.
I’m sure I saw him today.
-
Hope he plays today. Getting linked to likes of Loftus-Cheek....screw that and give the guy already at the club a chance.
Reminds me Screwfix sell 2 by fours.
If he gets on I hope he ties their left back in knots.
I’m sure I saw him today.
Me either - was expecting to see him dovetail with Rogers up the left.
-
He's in this vid from a year ago, as is A Ramsey.
-
Hope he plays today. Getting linked to likes of Loftus-Cheek....screw that and give the guy already at the club a chance.
Yeah, give him the next few games and see if he can make Emery eat his words that he’d made his mind up that he doesn’t want him two or three months ago. And if he STILL doesn’t rate him in a couple of weeks time, what’s £35m to a club with our financial headroom?
-
I think the problem was that the way review transfers, they would have interpreted the deal as having been done in the 25/26 season and we would have failed the rules we've been given and we would have had the full punishment and back to square one. Renegotiating the deal back to a loan with option to buy probably means that's not an issue now.
-
Hope he plays today. Getting linked to likes of Loftus-Cheek....screw that and give the guy already at the club a chance.
Yeah, give him the next few games and see if he can make Emery eat his words that he’d made his mind up that he doesn’t want him two or three months ago. And if he STILL doesn’t rate him in a couple of weeks time, what’s £35m to a club with our financial headroom?
Emery was happy to let Bailey go last summer yet he was our first man on yesterday. Maybe Liverpool might be flexible to the loan terms being extended a bit as at the moment all three parties involved are losing out.
-
I think the problem was that the way review transfers, they would have interpreted the deal as having been done in the 25/26 season and we would have failed the rules we've been given and we would have had the full punishment and back to square one. Renegotiating the deal back to a loan with option to buy probably means that's not an issue now.
Has it been renegotiated? I had assumed his reappearance meant that the Charlotte deal was pretty close to happening, but because the MLS doesn't start till mid/late Feb, we've maybe sat down with him and explained that due to our injury problems "We'd like you to be in the squad for the next 5 games, before you move to Charlotte - it helps us out, and it might help you get some match sharpness before you got there - how does that sound?"
If we've changed the terms of his loan, great, but I'd be VERY surprised if that had happened?
-
Hope he plays today. Getting linked to likes of Loftus-Cheek....screw that and give the guy already at the club a chance.
Yeah, give him the next few games and see if he can make Emery eat his words that he’d made his mind up that he doesn’t want him two or three months ago. And if he STILL doesn’t rate him in a couple of weeks time, what’s £35m to a club with our financial headroom?
Emery was happy to let Bailey go last summer yet he was our first man on yesterday. Maybe Liverpool might be flexible to the loan terms being extended a bit as at the moment all three parties involved are losing out.
And Bailey being the first man on doesn't answer your question? The lad obviously isn't playing for us again.
-
Hope he plays today. Getting linked to likes of Loftus-Cheek....screw that and give the guy already at the club a chance.
Yeah, give him the next few games and see if he can make Emery eat his words that he’d made his mind up that he doesn’t want him two or three months ago. And if he STILL doesn’t rate him in a couple of weeks time, what’s £35m to a club with our financial headroom?
Emery was happy to let Bailey go last summer yet he was our first man on yesterday. Maybe Liverpool might be flexible to the loan terms being extended a bit as at the moment all three parties involved are losing out.
And Bailey being the first man on doesn't answer your question? The lad obviously isn't playing for us again.
There was a rumour floating around yesterday in the ground that as Liverpool don't want Elliott back that Liverpool had increased the number of games
to trigger signing from 10 to 20....no idea if true but it does make sense...to me anyway
-
Hope he plays today. Getting linked to likes of Loftus-Cheek....screw that and give the guy already at the club a chance.
Yeah, give him the next few games and see if he can make Emery eat his words that he’d made his mind up that he doesn’t want him two or three months ago. And if he STILL doesn’t rate him in a couple of weeks time, what’s £35m to a club with our financial headroom?
Emery was happy to let Bailey go last summer yet he was our first man on yesterday. Maybe Liverpool might be flexible to the loan terms being extended a bit as at the moment all three parties involved are losing out.
And Bailey being the first man on doesn't answer your question? The lad obviously isn't playing for us again.
Maybe but surprised if he was on the bench yesterday if there really was no chance of him playing. Emery has made judgements before on players, Bailey and Buendia, but they have changed his mind. Buendia spectacularly so. Sancho and Guessand have been given every chance. If there was any chance of giving Elliot a proper go Id be in favour of it. He could play against Salzburg for starters.
-
Hope he plays today. Getting linked to likes of Loftus-Cheek....screw that and give the guy already at the club a chance.
Yeah, give him the next few games and see if he can make Emery eat his words that he’d made his mind up that he doesn’t want him two or three months ago. And if he STILL doesn’t rate him in a couple of weeks time, what’s £35m to a club with our financial headroom?
Emery was happy to let Bailey go last summer yet he was our first man on yesterday. Maybe Liverpool might be flexible to the loan terms being extended a bit as at the moment all three parties involved are losing out.
And Bailey being the first man on doesn't answer your question? The lad obviously isn't playing for us again.
There was a rumour floating around yesterday in the ground that as Liverpool don't want Elliott back that Liverpool had increased the number of games
to trigger signing from 10 to 20....no idea if true but it does make sense...to me anyway
It makes logical sense, but on a human level I think Emery will be aware that a demoralised player (because of Emery) will not be up to the required standard.
-
Hope he plays today. Getting linked to likes of Loftus-Cheek....screw that and give the guy already at the club a chance.
Yeah, give him the next few games and see if he can make Emery eat his words that he’d made his mind up that he doesn’t want him two or three months ago. And if he STILL doesn’t rate him in a couple of weeks time, what’s £35m to a club with our financial headroom?
Emery was happy to let Bailey go last summer yet he was our first man on yesterday. Maybe Liverpool might be flexible to the loan terms being extended a bit as at the moment all three parties involved are losing out.
And Bailey being the first man on doesn't answer your question? The lad obviously isn't playing for us again.
There was a rumour floating around yesterday in the ground that as Liverpool don't want Elliott back that Liverpool had increased the number of games
to trigger signing from 10 to 20....no idea if true but it does make sense...to me anyway
It makes logical sense, but on a human level I think Emery will be aware that a demoralised player (because of Emery) will not be up to the required standard.
Demoralised is probably most likely, but there's also the possibility you can harness the "I'll show this bastard how wrong he is" attitude.
More than happy to see Elliott come on and score a late winner on Sunday and run along the touchline flicking Vs at Emery on his way.
-
Point of order! Emery publicly said Buendia’s loan was to get his fitness up rather than him not being good enough. Emery appears to have directly questioned Elliot’s quality, at least against a £35m fee.
-
Hope he plays today. Getting linked to likes of Loftus-Cheek....screw that and give the guy already at the club a chance.
Yeah, give him the next few games and see if he can make Emery eat his words that he’d made his mind up that he doesn’t want him two or three months ago. And if he STILL doesn’t rate him in a couple of weeks time, what’s £35m to a club with our financial headroom?
Emery was happy to let Bailey go last summer yet he was our first man on yesterday. Maybe Liverpool might be flexible to the loan terms being extended a bit as at the moment all three parties involved are losing out.
And Bailey being the first man on doesn't answer your question? The lad obviously isn't playing for us again.
There was a rumour floating around yesterday in the ground that as Liverpool don't want Elliott back that Liverpool had increased the number of games
to trigger signing from 10 to 20....no idea if true but it does make sense...to me anyway
It makes logical sense, but on a human level I think Emery will be aware that a demoralised player (because of Emery) will not be up to the required standard.
Demoralised is probably most likely, but there's also the possibility you can harness the "I'll show this bastard how wrong he is" attitude.
More than happy to see Elliott come on and score a late winner on Sunday and run along the touchline flicking Vs at Emery on his way.
Emery playing 6D chess!
-
Point of order! Emery publicly said Buendia’s loan was to get his fitness up rather than him not being good enough. Emery appears to have directly questioned Elliot’s quality, at least against a £35m fee.
Weren't we openly shopping Buendia around last summer? That day he was brought on and off v Brentford seemed to be the final straw for him (thought it was a harsh call at the time). Footballers are remarkably resilient people in the main, Emery has his doubts about Elliot but things can change quickly.
-
Indeed, he could definitely change his mind. The problem will be the ten game threshold means he’s unlikely to see him in action.
That clause needs to be amended as it is not working for all four parties.
-
Indeed, he could definitely change his mind. The problem will be the ten game threshold means he’s unlikely to see him in action.
That clause needs to be amended as it is not working for all four parties.
4 parties ?
-
Indeed, he could definitely change his mind. The problem will be the ten game threshold means he’s unlikely to see him in action.
That clause needs to be amended as it is not working for all four parties.
4 parties ?
Villa
Elliott
Liverpool
House
-
Indeed, he could definitely change his mind. The problem will be the ten game threshold means he’s unlikely to see him in action.
That clause needs to be amended as it is not working for all four parties.
4 parties ?
Villa
Elliott
Liverpool
House
Wasn't Kortney released last summer?
-
Errrr, his agent?
(Sorry, I meant three parties)
-
Errrr, his agent?
(Sorry, I meant three parties)
No worries I thought maybe his Nan
-
Errrr, his agent?
(Sorry, I meant three parties)
We also need to factor in the fella who takes his bandages away in his van.
No worries I thought maybe his Nan
-
I think we're going to need to use him now with most of our midfield out with long-term injuries.
If we trigger the clause, I'm sure there we can re-sell him in the summer - even if he doesn't fit with us, someone else will want him.
And who knows - maybe he'll be good?
-
Just have to bite the bullet and play him, even if Emery isn't fully convinced. We need champions league which will be worth more than whatever the FFP hit will be, surely?
-
As much as I'm disappointed at the whole Elliott saga and believe that in the long run he could have been a really good player for us, I'm not sure Champions League qualification hinges on whether we play him or not.
-
We should play him, I think their is a really good player screaming to get out, if we played him we would end up keeping him.
-
The way this season has gone for Harvey on an individual level and the team as a whole, it wouldn't surprise me if there was a very happy twist of fate at some point where he makes a massive contribution to us gaining CL or winning silver ware.
-
Just have to bite the bullet and play him, even if Emery isn't fully convinced. We need champions league which will be worth more than whatever the FFP hit will be, surely?
Is he going to be the difference between us getting CL or not though?
-
Is he in the EL squad,
-
Not for long.
-
Is he in the EL squad,
Yes, he's played. But the squads can be adjusted before the knock-out stages
-
Be interesting to see if he plays on Thursday which would indicate the obligation clause related to Premier League matches.
-
Be interesting to see if he plays on Thursday which would indicate the obligation clause related to Premier League matches.
Any more so than his absence last week?
-
Just have to bite the bullet and play him, even if Emery isn't fully convinced. We need champions league which will be worth more than whatever the FFP hit will be, surely?
Is he going to be the difference between us getting CL or not though?
Depends how many more injuries we get. Hopefully with Luiz coming back we'll be OK.
-
Be interesting to see if he plays on Thursday which would indicate the obligation clause related to Premier League matches.
Any more so than his absence last week?
It was a crucial match then and we didn’t have the three injuries in central midfield.
If he’s not selected I’ll find that interesting as well for the reasons you seem to be implying here.
-
Be interesting to see if he plays on Thursday which would indicate the obligation clause related to Premier League matches.
Any more so than his absence last week?
It was a crucial match then and we didn’t have the three injuries in central midfield.
If he’s not selected I’ll find that interesting as well for the reasons you seem to be implying here.
I don't think there's any reason to think that Premier League matches are different to any other.
If we wanted to use him, but doing so in only league games puts us in a tricky position re: our financial obligations, there's no reason we don't get every minute of running out him against Spurs, Fenerbahce, Basel et al.
Maybe our dire midfield situation does now force our hand where it wasn't forced before, but I don't see how league matches / non league matches comes into it.
-
Be interesting to see if he plays on Thursday which would indicate the obligation clause related to Premier League matches.
Any more so than his absence last week?
It was a crucial match then and we didn’t have the three injuries in central midfield.
If he’s not selected I’ll find that interesting as well for the reasons you seem to be implying here.
I don't think there's any reason to think that Premier League matches are different to any other.
If we wanted to use him, but doing so in only league games puts us in a tricky position re: our financial obligations, there's no reason we don't get every minute of running out him against Spurs, Fenerbahce, Basel et al.
Maybe our dire midfield situation does now force our hand where it wasn't forced before, but I don't see how league matches / non league matches comes into it.
No I think the opposite.
The Telegraph stated last week that the obligation was triggered by 5 league games in the second half of the season.
That’s why think it will be very interesting to see if he’s used in the European games now our resources are so scarce.
Either way it will be revealing.
-
Where was he against Spurs then?
Surely if he might be needed in the future, you'd give him twenty minutes in a free game to help get him up to speed?
You'd at least stick him on the bench, no?
-
We’ll find out on Thursday won’t we?
Anyway I think I’ve exhausted the explanations of why it’s of interest to me now.
-
Unai Emery: “With Harvey (Elliott), it’s not changing. Our idea is that we spoke to him clearly. He’s a fantastic guy. On Sunday, he was on the bench, and if we needed some help from him, he was ready to do it. He is in the squad tomorrow. But the situation is not changing for him.”
There we go then.
-
Do we think that's a smokescreen for him taking over from Emi Martinez?
-
Still feel pretty sorry for him. Could easily throw a massive strop and not even bother but sounds like he is still training his arse off, working for the appearance that never comes.
-
Still feel pretty sorry for him. Could easily throw a massive strop and not even bother but sounds like he is still training his arse off, working for the appearance that never comes.
Yes it’s really rough on him.
-
So with Guessand going / gone, and McGinn injured, anyone wonder if he might be coming back into the picture or just replaced by Bailey.
-
It would be a shame for the player to lose an entire year of his career. He might be taking it professionally but he has to be fuming inside. And I can see why Liverpool wouldn’t take him back either. Elliott is a good player stuck in limbo. It would be great by the deadline if a resolution can be found. Even if our deal is cancelled and goes to MLS as was being rumoured.
-
It would be a shame for the player to lose an entire year of his career. He might be taking it professionally but he has to be fuming inside. And I can see why Liverpool wouldn’t take him back either. Elliott is a good player stuck in limbo. It would be great by the deadline if a resolution can be found. Even if our deal is cancelled and goes to MLS as was being rumoured.
Or for an agreed consideration Liverpool remove the buy clause. I think he would be used more than 4 times if that was the case given the current injury crisis.
-
We should save one of his games for Man City away and have him score the winner for the title. That'll make it worthwhile.
-
It would be a shame for the player to lose an entire year of his career. He might be taking it professionally but he has to be fuming inside. And I can see why Liverpool wouldn’t take him back either. Elliott is a good player stuck in limbo. It would be great by the deadline if a resolution can be found. Even if our deal is cancelled and goes to MLS as was being rumoured.
Or for an agreed consideration Liverpool remove the buy clause. I think he would be used more than 4 times if that was the case given the current injury crisis.
I will be very surprised if some sort of deal can't be reached by the end of the window. He's clearly not going to play for us if there's a chance it triggers the £35m purchase. We're clearly not going to give £35m to Liverpool at the end of the season.
If I was Liverpool, and they really have no use for him in their squad for the second half of the season, then I'd happily take a couple of million as a "loan fee" and tear up the obligation to buy (I'm assuming we didn't pay a loan fee for the season given it was assumed we'd be buying him). Then he could play for us, and get back in the shop window if they still want to sell him in the summer.
If he's sat at bodymoor on the 2nd Feb, and the deal hasn't changed at all, then I think that's a failure on our part and Liverpool's - but the biggest loser will be Harvey himself, who seems to have done very little wrong beyond not convincing Unai to spend £35m on him.
-
Do Liverpool have an obligation to look after the welfare of their player or did they wipe their hand of him when he signed on loan? Villa haven't covered themselves in any glory but, right now, Liverpool are allowing him to fail and impacting the value of their asset.
Strikes me, it suits all parties to adjust the ten game clause.
-
Can't see Liverpool being willing to do anything that might help us stay above them in a CL place.
-
Do Liverpool have an obligation to look after the welfare of their player or did they wipe their hand of him when he signed on loan? Villa haven't covered themselves in any glory but, right now, Liverpool are allowing him to fail and impacting the value of their asset.
Strikes me, it suits all parties to adjust the ten game clause.
We haven’t locked him a dungeon FFS.
He isn’t playing, he doesn’t suit our style or plan and we don’t want to be obligated to buy him.
It’s shit for him, maybe, but I doubt he’s having some sort of breakdown because of it.
Liverpool could just as easy take him back.
It is what it is.
-
Do Liverpool have an obligation to look after the welfare of their player or did they wipe their hand of him when he signed on loan? Villa haven't covered themselves in any glory but, right now, Liverpool are allowing him to fail and impacting the value of their asset.
Strikes me, it suits all parties to adjust the ten game clause.
What if he plays well for us, seeing us finish fifth and Liverpool sixth at the end of the season?
I can't imagine them seeing that as suiting them all that much.
-
Can't see Liverpool being willing to do anything that might help us stay above them in a CL place.
It could be a bluff, but doesn’t sound like Emery would suddenly start playing him every week. Currently he can’t play him at all.
-
Liverpool bringing him on as sub in the glorified friendly that is the community shield has fucked this season for him, had they not done that he could be playing elsewhere.
-
Was a league game just before he signed for us that did. 89th minute.
-
Was a league game just before he signed for us that did. 89th minute.
Was it? Dickheads.
-
Apologies if this has been answered many times before but could he play tonight?
-
Yes
-
Cheers
-
Was a league game just before he signed for us that did. 89th minute.
Was it? Dickheads.
He was played against Newcastle on the 25th August and stayed on the bench for their match on 31st August before signing late on the 1st Sept. For the match he played in, he came on with another player to go for the win, which they ended up doing. But even when he signed for us, I don't think anyone anywhere thought for a second we would actively avoid triggering his clause and we all expected him to be signed for us.
-
Gwan Harvey.
-
Really hope it goes well for him tonight, no matter what his future is with the club.
-
Hmmmm, I suspect an agreement has been made with LFC. Maybe 20 games now?
-
Hmmmm, I suspect an agreement has been made with LFC. Maybe 20 games now?
Or we've just got five to use, and tonight felt like a good one in the absence of DL, Bailey, Guessand etc.
-
Let's see how professional he has been, a good performance tonught will raise some interesting questions. Emery clearly sees him as a ACM hence why he hasn't put himself into contention, can he do a job on the right?
-
Hold my hands up, was absolutely certain he wouldn't play for us again let alone start. Maybe Emery really is playing 6D chess.
-
Manager doubts you, doesn't think you're worth the £.
Prove him wrong, like Little Emi did.
-
He appears to have toned down the Barnet a little which I'm positive is the main reason for his return to the fold.
-
Harvey Gelliot.
-
Hmmmm, I suspect an agreement has been made with LFC. Maybe 20 games now?
I doubt it. Slot is so desperate to keep his job he'll pull every trick in the book to try and destabilise those clubs above him.
-
He appears to have toned down the Barnet a little which I'm positive is the main reason for his return to the fold.
I haven't seen this but I'm tentatively encouraged. This is a very long, very slow path though.
-
Hmmmm, I suspect an agreement has been made with LFC. Maybe 20 games now?
I doubt it. Slot is so desperate to keep his job he'll pull every trick in the book to try and destabilise those clubs above him.
Who could blame him?
-
Maybe we have decided to buy him with Guessand now gone?
-
For those of us not at Villa Park how did he do?
-
Looked average, shown up by the kids
-
Looked average, shown up by the kids
I disagree with that. I felt for a guy thats hardly played he did well. Battled hard and unlucky not to score two. But i think that was abit rusty
-
Looked average, shown up by the kids
That is really harsh.
-
The guys on TNT thought he did well overall.
It’s reasonable to accept he must be a bit ring rusty.
-
The guys on TNT thought he did well overall.
It’s reasonable to accept he must be a bit ring rusty.
(https://i.ibb.co/7ttsXv2G/2-F19372700000578-0-image-a-28-1449367657158.jpg) (https://ibb.co/7ttsXv2G)
-
Looked average, shown up by the kids
That is really harsh.
I thought he did well in the second half.
-
Looked average, shown up by the kids
That is really harsh.
Stevo doesn't hold back and should be heralded on high.
-
Yep, very harsh bearing in mind hes hardly played all season.
-
Caused them problems in the second half. Moved the ball on quickly and was looking to get it forward. If he plays like that every week I hope he stays.
-
Only a fluke save stopped him scoring early. He did well for someone that has hasn't played for yonks.
-
Only a fluke save stopped him scoring early. He did well for someone that has hasn't played for yonks.
Might he have been offside if VAR checked after a goal? Looked mighty close.
-
Only a fluke save stopped him scoring early. He did well for someone that has hasn't played for yonks.
Great save, scorpion kick
-
Only a fluke save stopped him scoring early. He did well for someone that has hasn't played for yonks.
Might he have been offside if VAR checked after a goal? Looked mighty close.
Pretty sure he wasn't, but Buendia would have been. I thought he did pretty well all things considered, not "Unai will change his my mind about triggering the £35m purchase" well, but certainly better than expected for someone who hasn't played since October. Very surprised to see him bombing forward in the 87th minute behind Young.
I guess we'll get three more of these appearances before he disappears for good, unless a deal can be struck to restructure his loan.
One thing I will say, I'm on record saying I thought it was probably too late to 'fix' the loan, as he must be completely demotivated after the first half of the season and working for a manager who doesn't want to buy him - but that did not come across at ALL tonight.
He worked hard and looked up for it all night. If a deal can be struck that keeps him here, and available to play, even if it means we don't buy him, I'd be more than happy to see him in the squad.
-
Maybe we have decided to buy him with Guessand now gone?
Think there may be something in that you know. There’s a player in there and he deserves his chance to show it.
-
Maybe we have decided to buy him with Guessand now gone?
Think there may be something in that you know. There’s a player in there and he deserves his chance to show it.
If Guessand was a guaranteed sale in the summer, then I'd be tempted to agree - but it's only an option, and there is every likelihood Guessand will be back with us in the summer.
-
Maybe we have decided to buy him with Guessand now gone?
Think there may be something in that you know. There’s a player in there and he deserves his chance to show it.
That crossed my mind earlier too, Guessands departure may have the way.
-
Maybe we have decided to buy him with Guessand now gone?
Think there may be something in that you know. There’s a player in there and he deserves his chance to show it.
If Guessand was a guaranteed sale in the summer, then I'd be tempted to agree - but it's only an option, and there is every likelihood Guessand will be back with us in the summer.
Yes, more likely we won’t make a sale there unless he turns his form around dramatically, so I can’t see that as a rationale for buying Elliott.
-
I can’t see anything with him that suggests he will move us a level.
Seems very much a run of the mill player who would thrive at Fulham, West Ham or Everton.
-
He was okay but he’s not going to improve us in any shape or form. I think UE feels the same.
-
I thought he did really well, always wanting the ball, moving it quickly and very positive. Sure there was a fair bit of rust but his fitness levels were surprisingly good. And his attitude to getting through work was brilliant.
One of the strangest situations I can remember but, if there is a road back to our first team, he did nothing to suggest we shouldn't consider it.
-
I thought he did really well, always wanting the ball, moving it quickly and very positive. Sure there was a fair bit of rust but his fitness levels were surprisingly good. And his attitude to getting through work was brilliant.
One of the strangest situations I can remember but, if there is a road back to our first team, he did nothing to suggest we shouldn't consider it.
This was how I saw it, he was always making himself available, I can't have said the same about Guessand.
-
Leeds type player. Might as well utilize him for 9 appearances then it is what it is. Not worth anything remotely close to £35m.
-
He was okay but he’s not going to improve us in any shape or form. I think UE feels the same.
I certainly do.
-
I've been wrong many, many times before but..he was better than Buendia, who we think is worth about that, Guessand, same. He did what you'd expect, probably more given his lack of match sharpness and surely, reduced levels of motivation.
Whilst it's not my money, I don't think he did anything to suggest he's not worth what is, really, the going rate for a decent level PL player.
-
Leeds type player. Might as well utilize him for 9 appearances then it is what it is. Not worth anything remotely close to £35m.
Whatever you say, Goldie.
-
Leeds type player. Might as well utilize him for 9 appearances then it is what it is. Not worth anything remotely close to £35m.
Whatever you say, Goldie.
Maybe he ruined a bet for him? 😔
-
Honestly, I don't disagree with Goldie on this.
-
A bit of a Tom Cleverley for the 2020s. Fine but we're beyond his and Guessand's levels now.
-
Honestly, I don't disagree with Goldie on this.
I thought he was fine for a man who couldn't be much further away from match fitness (outside of injury).
-
He was ok, was pleasantly surprised to see him still driving on in the closing minutes. First half thought some of the inter play with Sancho was the only bright spark and had they had Cash out there not Bogarde I’m pretty sure we’d have overwhelmed the left back.
Interesting that he was the last one in front of Holte applauding and waving - not sure if it was ‘hi, remember me’ or ‘bye’
-
Either way, hope the club can find a solution for him before Monday, this current standoff isn’t working out too well for anyone.
-
Tyrone Mings posting the Ian Wright 'I thought you was dead' GIF on Elliott's Instagram post is pretty funny. These lads seem like a good laugh.
-
Leeds type player. Might as well utilize him for 9 appearances then it is what it is. Not worth anything remotely close to £35m.
Whatever you say, Goldie.
I keep a list of players in my notes and I’d much prefer us dipping back into the lower leagues to find more quality like Rogers. I really like Tyreece Campbell at Charlton — two-footed with blistering pace. His current stats don’t exactly jump off the page yet, but I can see there’s something there. Under Emery, he could be absolutely ridiculous for us on either wing. Elliott doesn’t give me that feeling, so he never made my list. :P
*Wrote purely for future receipts. When Brighton or Bournemouth inevitably sign him and everyone is going full Antoine Semenyo, I’ll be dusting this off.
-
Tyrone Mings posting the Ian Wright 'I thought you was dead' GIF on Elliott's Instagram post is pretty funny. These lads seem like a good laugh.
Most of the squad reacting to his post positively, he's clearly a popular bloke with the players. Regardless of his contract position, he's obviously earned the respect of his colleagues while at Bodymoor.
-
I thought he did ok - considering he’s not played in months, and even when he’s had minutes it’s been fleeting. He kept going and had some good link up play.
-
Very hard to judge to be honest. We were so poor in the first 50-60 and they weren’t very good in general once we did decide to step up. He did no worse than anyone else and you can see he wants to try to play football. I can also see why Emery doesn’t fancy him and I think it’s just a case of Emery thinking this guys fine, we could coach him and he might play the way we want to but we don’t have £35m to punt on a “might” (notwithstanding the fact we chucked a similar amount at Guessand and he’s useless).
-
You’d be very harsh to judge him on last night. So I’ll judge him on that and the other had full of appearance - he’s ok. That’s it.
-
He ran around a lot. He showed for the ball. Gave his all which in the circumstances is a credit to him. He isn’t worth £35M though, and we need to sort something out with Liverpool quickly to either free the spot up, or be able to use him without signing him. Option 3 I guess is to negotiate a cheaper buy price so you could then simply sell him on for the same fee and not loose out too badly on SCR or whichever acronym we are meant to use these days.
-
As a Buendia understudy I think he would be a good option - we're just not in the position to spend £35 million quid on that.
-
As a Buendia understudy I think he would be a good option - we're just not in the position to spend £35 million quid on that.
That’s a succinct summary.
Liverpool’s problem now is that his value will fall whilst he isn’t played. I will take a small amount of joy when he’s for £25m knowing they have “lost” £10m because they refused to relax the ten games clause.
-
I thought he did ok - considering he’s not played in months, and even when he’s had minutes it’s been fleeting. He kept going and had some good link up play.
Agree Paul. Thought he came into it more in the second half and was involved in some good passages of play.
-
I thought he did ok - considering he’s not played in months, and even when he’s had minutes it’s been fleeting. He kept going and had some good link up play.
Agree Paul. Thought he came into it more in the second half and was involved in some good passages of play.
He has nice feet , but doesnt look very moblile , but some of that might be rustiness
-
The rustiness was entirely understandable, not helped by the way the team as a whole approached the game in the first half. I liked that he seemed as pleased as anyone at the end of the game.
-
As a Buendia understudy I think he would be a good option - we're just not in the position to spend £35 million quid on that.
Wasn't too long ago Buendia was Rogers understudy at best. Fortunes can change quickly in football. Elliot could be useful in games like the recent Everton one. He is very light and that's the main issue I see. Struggles to protect possession. Sancho has same issue.
-
Leeds type player. Might as well utilize him for 9 appearances then it is what it is. Not worth anything remotely close to £35m.
Whatever you say, Goldie.
I keep a list of players in my notes and I’d much prefer us dipping back into the lower leagues to find more quality like Rogers. I really like Tyreece Campbell at Charlton — two-footed with blistering pace. His current stats don’t exactly jump off the page yet, but I can see there’s something there. Under Emery, he could be absolutely ridiculous for us on either wing. Elliott doesn’t give me that feeling, so he never made my list. :P
*Wrote purely for future receipts. When Brighton or Bournemouth inevitably sign him and everyone is going full Antoine Semenyo, I’ll be dusting this off.
I liked the young Japanese lad they had last night.
-
Leeds type player. Might as well utilize him for 9 appearances then it is what it is. Not worth anything remotely close to £35m.
Whatever you say, Goldie.
I keep a list of players in my notes and I’d much prefer us dipping back into the lower leagues to find more quality like Rogers. I really like Tyreece Campbell at Charlton — two-footed with blistering pace. His current stats don’t exactly jump off the page yet, but I can see there’s something there. Under Emery, he could be absolutely ridiculous for us on either wing. Elliott doesn’t give me that feeling, so he never made my list. :P
*Wrote purely for future receipts. When Brighton or Bournemouth inevitably sign him and everyone is going full Antoine Semenyo, I’ll be dusting this off.
I liked the young Japanese lad they had last night.
So did the commentator - never stopped going on about him.
-
As good as Buendia has been this season, I think Elliot has more quality. Rusty tonight, but the way he plays changes our passing tempo.
-
Is he not worth £35m though?
We paid £30m for Guessand, only really played in France, his stats weren't mind blowing. We paid £38m for Buendia 5 years ago, championship player of the year fair enough but Elliott comes from a title winning Liverpool squad and he just won player of the tournament for England U21s.
All things considered he did really well last night, his attitude is faultless under the circumstances. I think he could be at least a Buendia for us long term and I'd sooner see him get a chance than us spend £25 to £35 million on someone else. Obviously whatever Unai thinks is the final word as he is beyond criticism or doubt, if he has a few players in mind in the £15m range that could be Rogers level then that's a different story.
-
He ran around a lot. He showed for the ball. Gave his all which in the circumstances is a credit to him. He isn’t worth £35M though, and we need to sort something out with Liverpool quickly to either free the spot up, or be able to use him without signing him. Option 3 I guess is to negotiate a cheaper buy price so you could then simply sell him on for the same fee and not loose out too badly on SCR or whichever acronym we are meant to use these days.
We shouldn't even have to negotiate a cheaper price, just pay a 'loan fee' to turn the loan into an optional purchase instead of a compulsory one. I would imagine we've not paid a fee to loan him this season, as they were expecting £35m in the summer. Well, that's clearly not happening now. So why not pay a loan fee instead, and get the compulsory purchase removed from the agreement? Elliot gets to play, Liverpool get a few million and a player to sell in the summer who hasn't been rotting on the training ground all year.
We paid £4.25 to loan Zaniolo for a season, so I don't see why we wouldn't do similar here?
It's possible we're playing a game of chicken and hoping Liverpool blinks first, but honestly, if we get to the end of the window and this kid's position has changed at all, it's as much a failure on our part as it is Liverpool's.
-
He's worth 35m I reckon, big question is if he's worth 35m to us.
-
Is he not worth £35m though?
We paid £30m for Guessand, only really played in France, his stats weren't mind blowing. We paid £38m for Buendia 5 years ago, championship player of the year fair enough but Elliott comes from a title winning Liverpool squad and he just won player of the tournament for England U21s.
All things considered he did really well last night, his attitude is faultless under the circumstances. I think he could be at least a Buendia for us long term and I'd sooner see him get a chance than us spend £25 to £35 million on someone else. Obviously whatever Unai thinks is the final word as he is beyond criticism or doubt, if he has a few players in mind in the £15m range that could be Rogers level then that's a different story.
Yeah, I don't see £35 mil as some outlandish price. Whether we can afford it and want to spend it elsewhere is a different matter but the price? No issue for me. We spunked 25 or so on Guessand!
-
Impressed me last night. Didn't have his arse in his hand - just went out and worked hard. I thought he improved as the game went on, and considering he's played no football to speak of for months, he did better than I would have expected.
Still think the lad's quality and would be quite happy for us to sign him permanently.
-
Is he not worth £35m though?
We paid £30m for Guessand, only really played in France, his stats weren't mind blowing. We paid £38m for Buendia 5 years ago, championship player of the year fair enough but Elliott comes from a title winning Liverpool squad and he just won player of the tournament for England U21s.
All things considered he did really well last night, his attitude is faultless under the circumstances. I think he could be at least a Buendia for us long term and I'd sooner see him get a chance than us spend £25 to £35 million on someone else. Obviously whatever Unai thinks is the final word as he is beyond criticism or doubt, if he has a few players in mind in the £15m range that could be Rogers level then that's a different story.
£26m for Guessand, £33m for Buendia. Glad you’re not doing the books, we’d have been docked points.
-
He's worth 35m I reckon, big question is if he's worth 35m to us.
And that's the crux of it. Whether he's overpriced at £35m, or not, Unai has decided he can do more with his limited funds than spend that £35m on Harvey. And, as tough as that is on the kid, that's the reality.
He might well be worth £35m to someone else in the summer, he might not. But given our precarious financial situation, we're not able to spend that money without significantly sacrificing our wiggle room to strengthen the team elsewhere. If we'd triggered his clause, there is no way we're signing Tammy, for example. Unai isn't just making a decision on whether Harvey is worth £35m, he's comparing it to what that £35m can do for our team elsewhere.
Do I personally think Harvey is worth £35m? Yes, I probably do. Certainly £25m-£30m. In a world where JJ was worth £40m, I don't think it's a ridiculous price for Harvey at all. If someone else had bought him in the summer for £35m, I certainly wouldn't have sat there reading about it and thinking, "Liverpool have had their pants down there!"
He will have a very solid Premier League career (or top flight European career), and be a good servant to whichever club he ends up at. He might even get a few caps, and you can't say that about every £30m footballer these days.
-
Shame the early chance didn't go in. Bizarre save by the keeper. Easy to forget the brilliant summer he had and some of the quality moments he showed for Liverpool in the league and CL. He's a young player that will have a lost a year of his career. That's not on him that we decided not to use him a month after he joined. We should never have signed him if we weren't sure about him.
-
Thought he had a good game. Should have had 2 really.
But more importantly , how good is his character ? I’ve seen no moaning publicly, he’s got his head down and got on with it. Must have been really tough , so fair play to him.
-
Impressed me last night. Didn't have his arse in his hand - just went out and worked hard. I thought he improved as the game went on, and considering he's played no football to speak of for months, he did better than I would have expected.
Still think the lad's quality and would be quite happy for us to sign him permanently.
Agree. If its possible to feel sorry for a man on probably £100k a week I feel sorry for him, I was absolutely aching for him to do well last night and I think he did. Second half he went through the gears I felt. Those little first time passes were like a can opener on their back line and that's really for me where the game turned back our way. If Unai thinks he can do better for the price I'd be interested to know who he has in mind. I wish Harvey well.
-
I’d love us to sign him, I think he’d be excellent for us.
-
Not everything came off but I thought he was pretty decent in the second half.
-
Not everything came off
Well, let's all be thankful for that.
-
I thought he was ok last night (with hte expected rustiness of someone who has missed so much football) but it did seem, quite often, that he was trying to play a different game to the rest of the team, expecting runs that didn't happen, making runs into the wrong channels, etc. If that's what he's like in training I can see why emery has a lot of nice things to say about him (because the ability is there) but has decided not to make it permanent.
-
It might be worth re-negotiating the buy clause as he’s already in the Euro squad, and therefore wouldn’t impact the inclusion of Bailey, Abraham and Luiz. Aside from that, I’d still rather have the £35m at the end of the season than Harvey.
-
Re negotiating that clause could be the best "signing" option we could make in the last couple of days of the window.
-
There hasn't been any indication that Liverpool are interested in such a deal. I suppose another option is that we find a club who are willing to pay at least £30 million for him this summer and then we don't have to worry about the clause too much.
-
If someone offered £25-30m for Buendia then I think Emery would trigger the ten games clause. Sadly for Elliot, no one has made that offer and therefore we are better off getting value out of Little Emi.
-
(https://scontent.fbhx4-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/622402725_122122834173017726_1712358857575604279_n.jpg?stp=dst-jpg_s640x640_tt6&_nc_cat=106&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=833d8c&_nc_ohc=Wmf6Tm_MEpUQ7kNvwH5_DXC&_nc_oc=AdmbyI_DauoCSvSyTqvC2V8XKdVE3sG_I2Z9LKdn0AR_-CyxiCyG47v6S8kICMcpCr8&_nc_zt=23&_nc_ht=scontent.fbhx4-2.fna&_nc_gid=e_mK3a31G1ZzClJ6fKOw_Q&oh=00_AfqJ0lvJYXWrU3-xRfMsP31QbbIWqeq6xpaWt2BMRun3jA&oe=69829E28)
-
That's funny. I'm glad he's retained his sense of humour. The other players have kept his spirits up too which is good to see.
-
If someone offered £25-30m for Buendia then I think Emery would trigger the ten games clause. Sadly for Elliot, no one has made that offer and therefore we are better off getting value out of Little Emi.
Little Emi is worth more and he's the one player we have who when not scoring worldies, operates so well with Rogers. I can't see Unai even considering his sale right now.
-
Emi's give and go to Morgz helped get us back in the game. The Little Prince is here to thrive.
-
He appears to have toned down the Barnet a little which I'm positive is the main reason for his return to the fold.
Surely it's the mane reason?
-
I dunno, there appears to be very little between Emi and Elliott in terms of talent, but Emi is nearly 30, has a year left and will probably want another 3 year contract on big money. Might be last chance to get good money for him and we have a replacement on the books.
-
Emi's give and go to Morgz helped get us back in the game. The Little Prince is here to thrive.
It was two 1-2s between them in a real tight space. Beautifully worked and deserving of a goal.
-
I dunno, there appears to be very little between Emi and Elliott in terms of talent, but Emi is nearly 30, has a year left and will probably want another 3 year contract on big money. Might be last chance to get good money for him and we have a replacement on the books.
Maybe in the summer but Buendia has been brilliant for us this season. No way will he be leaving. I'd be ok with Sancho going though.
If we have like real money we can spend on non former players - I think Ampadu at Leeds has progressed really well. They will hardly sell this month though. He's a good age, very comfortable on the ball, good positional sense.
-
I dunno, there appears to be very little between Emi and Elliott in terms of talent, but Emi is nearly 30, has a year left and will probably want another 3 year contract on big money. Might be last chance to get good money for him and we have a replacement on the books.
Maybe in the summer but Buendia has been brilliant for us this season. No way will he be leaving. I'd be ok with Sancho going though.
If we have like real money we can spend on non former players - I think Ampadu at Leeds has progressed really well. They will hardly sell this month though. He's a good age, very comfortable on the ball, good positional sense.
I really like Ampadu.
-
Emi's give and go to Morgz helped get us back in the game. The Little Prince is here to thrive.
It was two 1-2s between them in a real tight space. Beautifully worked and deserving of a goal.
is there footage of that somewhere ?
-
Emi's give and go to Morgz helped get us back in the game. The Little Prince is here to thrive.
It was two 1-2s between them in a real tight space. Beautifully worked and deserving of a goal.
is there footage of that somewhere ?
The highlights are on YouTube.
-
Emi's give and go to Morgz helped get us back in the game. The Little Prince is here to thrive.
It was two 1-2s between them in a real tight space. Beautifully worked and deserving of a goal.
is there footage of that somewhere ?
Found it:
-
thanks that was lovely . There was also some other interplay in the corner that was the most quick fire passing i have ever seen and we had been rubbish 😳😃
-
What has struck me of late is how good we are playing right through the middle of teams with close control and intricate passing. That goal the other night, Buendia at Newcastle, the two at Spurs are just some examples. We really are a joy to watch at times.
-
It worries me that we're turning to him because he's not right for us and it feels desperate.
-
I agree.
If Unai doesn’t want him, and has kept him away so far, why play him at all now?
He adds nothing to what we already have.
-
If we end up paying £35m for him then it's another huge transfer market mistake.
-
Strange choice of game to use him when we had barkley on the bench..onana clearly has a injury hence why he wasnt used
-
Keep him out of the squad. Nothing against the bloke, but that crazy winning run we were on coincided with hi being out of the squad and I just think he is all wrong for us.
-
Keep him out of the squad. Nothing against the bloke, but that crazy winning run we were on coincided with hi being out of the squad and I just think he is all wrong for us.
It coincided with our best 3 midfielders being fit.
-
If we end up paying £35m for him then it's another huge transfer market mistake.
What's qualifying for the CL worth? Elliot is a bit samey to our other options unfortunately. They all want to come in field
-
He isn't going to be the difference between qualifying or not. There's nothing Emery has saw in him in 5 months leading up to now to pick him.
-
With the 10 game clause - 5 of them have to be in the second half of the season, and we're assuming it's all comps.
He played Thursday and today, so we've got two more left. With Onana and Barkley likely back next week, it seems that another 3 months with no games or even getting on the bench is on the cards unless a new agreement is reached with Liverpool tomorrow.
-
With the 10 game clause - 5 of them have to be in the second half of the season, and we're assuming it's all comps.
If this now apparently true thing is true, can you give me plausible answers to these three questions:
(1) why, with all the news about ten game periods, all of the well-connected journalists Who Know Things knew the ten game thing and have reported it didn't know about this weird "but five of them have to be in the second half of the season" subclause? They apparently knew the rest of it last September, why not this bit?
(2) why, why the fuck is that a clause? Who is it to protect or help? In the room where the various representatives of Villa, Liverpool and Elliott are meeting, who is banging their hand on the table and chucking in "BUT! Five games need to be after *checks notes* sometime at the end of January. There's definitely a reason this is important".
(3) most obviously, if this is true it then we could have used him as much as wanted. There's now a weird clause that means we don't have to sign him unless five of the games are later than some random point in January. So...he doesn't now need to be sitting at home for the last four months and we can just use him like anyone else?
-
Agree Dave, it doesn’t add up.
-
Keep him out of the squad. Nothing against the bloke, but that crazy winning run we were on coincided with hi being out of the squad and I just think he is all wrong for us.
It coincided with our best 3 midfielders being fit.
Er, we started the season very badly including Elliot being singled out by Emery in our drab draw with Sunderland. Elliot was nowhere during that amazing 15 wins in 17 games period
-
I'm just going on what John Percy wrote a week ago - I assume he's more clued-in than we are. Sounds like he had only discovered the 5 games being "rationed" bit quite recently. Do you think he's made it up? Feels like a weird thing to pluck from the air and put your name to.
How many games do you think Elliott has left in his Villa "allowance"?
-
With Harvey getting a couple of appearances this past week, perhaps Liverpool will be more amenable to altering the loan conditions?
Still don’t see the point of him being here and not playing because we don’t want to buy him
Hopefully common sense comes into play today and they remove the game allowance from the contract
-
I'm just going on what John Percy wrote a week ago - I assume he's more clued-in than we are. Sounds like he had only discovered the 5 games being "rationed" bit quite recently. Do you think he's made it up? Feels like a weird thing to pluck from the air and put your name to.
How many games do you think Elliott has left in his Villa "allowance"?
It doesn’t explain why he was no where near the bench even when we knew him playing in the first half of the season did not count.
-
I haven’t seen anything from in few matches he’s played to suggest he’ll improve the team. Gets dispossessed alarmingly easily.
-
I’d put any of his failings at the moment due to lack of game time. It’s impossible to judge a player who’s had an hours worth of football in the last 7 months or so.
-
This scenario gets curiouser and curiouser.
-
I haven’t seen anything from in few matches he’s played to suggest he’ll improve the team. Gets dispossessed alarmingly easily.
He's a bit slow as well.
-
He seems like a poor version of Buendia. The original version, not the improved, but regressing, version.
-
He seems like a poor version of Buendia. The original version, not the improved, but regressing, version.
That’s exactly what I’m seeing - but minus the tantrums at least. I’m not sure you can fully attribute that to lack of game time.
-
Harsh, maybe, but I would play one of our own youth players before I would play Elliot.
-
I like him, he's relatively self assured with a decent eye for a progressive pass and get's into decent space, but I said on the day we signed him that 35m was a ridiculous overvaluation. Nothing he's done since that day has proved me wrong.
He's got no pace or physicality, fine, but he's not good enough technically to cover for those weaknesses either, so what does he offer?
-
Yeah, he's quite rubbish.
-
It's not even that he's rubbish, just way too expensive. It's absurd to me that the club thought that was a fair price, especially with such an insanely tight obligation clause.
-
£20m seems a fair valuation. Everything on top is just SKY6 hype tax.
-
Harsh, maybe, but I would play one of our own youth players before I would play Elliot.
And it seems a bit odd that we didn't, and sent a feasible option on loan to WBA instead if playing him in this game.
I agree that Elliott doesn't offer any more than Buendia when we have the ball and perhaps a little less when we don't, but there is something about him I like from the brief glimpses I've seen. He seems to inject a little 'busyness' and pace into our forward play, he's a bit impatient to make something happen. So maybe he's not all that great but seeing him play answers some of the mild frustrations I have watching us at home at times.
-
I think Elliott is a good player - he's busy, and he looks forward - if he's not up to speed or rusty at the moment it's because we've dicked him about for months
-
It's not even that he's rubbish, just way too expensive. It's absurd to me that the club thought that was a fair price, especially with such an insanely tight obligation clause.
Given the market his valuation isn’t that crazy imo. We spent somewhere in between £22m -£28m on Guessand, we spent £38m on Buendia however many years ago. Forest spent similar amounts on McAtee and Hutchinson, it’s the going rate.
-
I was going to write that £35m is the going rate for an U21 player of the tournament, however having checked the previous winners, its not the illustrious list of superstars I’d imagined it would be:
2023 - Anthony Gordon - Jury still out?
2021 - Fabio Viera - MISS
2019 - Fabian Ruiz - HIT
2017 - Danny Onions Ceballos - MISS
2015 - William Carvalho - MISS
Tiago and Mata - HITS
Drenth, Berg, Huntelaar, Gilardino - MISSES
-
Tom Collomose in the Mail reporting that we and Liverpool are now discussing the terms of the loan with a view to amending them as at present, it suits no party.
Which kind of begs the question of why has it taken so long as presumably, these discussions have nothing to do with the transfer window.
-
Harsh on Gilardino. Over 200 goals in 600 games across a twenty year career, winning the Champions League and World Cup.
That's not bad.
-
Aye, Carvalho has also had a good career, Drenth and Huntlaar also played CL regularly, I think, I cant be arsed to look at the stats to prove it mind.
-
“Miss” might be harsh but I don’t think they became the generational talents that they would have hoped to be (admittedly I had no idea Gilardino had won a World Cup).
-
I think it’s crazy to make any sort of judgement on him now - he’s essentially not played for 6 months, and I suspect that will not only have impacted him physically but his confidence will be low. The fact he managed 90 mins on Thursday and was useful enough is pretty remarkable in itself.
If we can sort a situation whereby he can play more for the remainder of the season I suspect it’d be a big help.
-
Tom Collomose in the Mail reporting that we and Liverpool are now discussing the terms of the loan with a view to amending them as at present, it suits no party.
Which kind of begs the question of why has it taken so long as presumably, these discussions have nothing to do with the transfer window.
Not surprising. This was why i said it would be interesting to see if he was used against Salzburg and then Brentford.
Clearly some sort of gambit ahead of deadline day.
I guess its now completely up to Liverpool how they want to play this one with a CL rival.
-
Yes and no, it’s not like he has been injured so his underlying fitness should be okay. Nerves and confidence could be less then optimum levels.
-
I did not see anything impressive when he played for Liverpool, he has no real pace, does not beat a player and does not get into dangerous positions.
The price was ridiculous.
-
He did get into dangerous positions for Liverpool, just look at his goals there.
-
Would always be suspicious of u21 football, it's a bit of a nothing grade in truth. Elliot definitely needs to step up his strength and conditioning work to compete at the highest level but he plays with his head up. Has a decent shot on him too.
-
He reminds me of Barry Bannan a bit. Tons of skill, but little in the way of physicality or pace.
-
He did get into dangerous positions for Liverpool, just look at his goals there.
He was never more dangerous than when he picked up a pen to sign for us.
-
He reminds me of Barry Bannan a bit. Tons of skill, but little in the way of physicality or pace.
Nail on head.
It's always confused me when they say the Championship is a physcial league, when players like Bannan can do very well there and I'm sure Elliot would too.
-
He reminds me of Barry Bannan a bit. Tons of skill, but little in the way of physicality or pace.
Nail on head.
It's always confused me when they say the Championship is a physcial league, when players like Bannan can do very well there and I'm sure Elliot would too.
It maybe used to be the case but nowdays the Premier League players are like decathletes with a decent touch.
-
So, is there going to be a last-minute change to the circumstances surrounding Elliott or is the current stand-off going to continue till June?
-
Tom Collomose in the Mail reporting that we and Liverpool are now discussing the terms of the loan with a view to amending them as at present, it suits no party.
Which kind of begs the question of why has it taken so long as presumably, these discussions have nothing to do with the transfer window.
Probably because we were hoping they’d call him back so we could het another loan
They didn’t want to do that as it’d help us and they’re trying to catch us
But they might be more willing to talk over removing the clause as if he doesn’t play he loses value
Really sad all round
-
Tom Collomose in the Mail reporting that we and Liverpool are now discussing the terms of the loan with a view to amending them as at present, it suits no party.
Which kind of begs the question of why has it taken so long as presumably, these discussions have nothing to do with the transfer window.
Probably because we were hoping they’d call him back so we could het another loan
They didn’t want to do that as it’d help us and they’re trying to catch us
But they might be more willing to talk over removing the clause as if he doesn’t play he loses value
Really sad all round
Can we change the terms of the loan outside the transfer window? It FEELS like that wouldn't be allowed, but this entire loan situation has been so strange I really wouldn't know.
If we can, then there's no rush until he's made 9 appearances - so I suspect we have until midnight to get a deal altered.
My guess? We lose the obligation to buy, and pay a 'loan fee' for the season instead, probably in the Zaniolo loan-fee ballpark. Liverpool get a few million instead of nothing, and we get to play for him potentially 20-ish games instead of 9.
If the window closes and no resolution has been found, then I think it would reflect incredibly poorly on both Liverpool and us, and I would feel incredibly sorry for Harvey.
-
He reminds me of Barry Bannan a bit. Tons of skill, but little in the way of physicality or pace.
Nail on head.
It's always confused me when they say the Championship is a physcial league, when players like Bannan can do very well there and I'm sure Elliot would too.
I think what they mean by physical, is that if you're an athlete - a physical specimen - you can make a decent living at that level, purely on physicality - if you're fast, strong and fit, and can play a bit - you can do perfectly well in the Championship.
But to play in the Premier League you need serious ability, AND to be at least competitive physically speaking. If you're an athlete, but a mediocre footballer, the games will pass you by.
-
Apparently renegotiation talks have failed and he stays on current terms and in current limbo.
-
Apparently renegotiation talks have failed and he stays on current terms and in current limbo.
What's the source for that? Huge shame if true...
-
You would think say £10 million loan fee no obligation to buy, but if you do buy it comes off the fee
-
Why would Liverpool help us though, when they're trying to catch us? We've just lost 3 nailed on starting midfielders. We either use their player and they get £35m, or don't use him and have one fewer midfielders to choose from.
£10m to them now is nothing really.
-
Thats a shame - but clearly they think that damaging Elliots career is better than finding a work around (which I get - were above them after all).
They've spent .5bn this season. So righting off a youth player isnt really going to be an issue - but there on pitch peformances have been.
-
Apparently renegotiation talks have failed and he stays on current terms and in current limbo.
What's the source for that? Huge shame if true...
Could have sworn I saw it on BBC Live Text an hour or so ago but can't find it now.
-
Well, two hours ago Tanswell and Evans (via The Athletic) are saying, this is a quote from their Tweet:
"Harvey Elliott is expected to stay at Aston Villa after failing to find an agreement on a return to Liverpool.
Club sources say there had been no recent discussions on the removal of the 10-game obligation that exists in the deal for Elliott, which indicates that Villa need to pay a permanent fee between £30-35m to sign the 22-year-old permanently.
If Villa wished to end the agreement they would have to pay to a termination fee, while Liverpool did not want to recall Elliott."
----
The fact that there is even an option to terminate, for a fee, is news to me, and it must be pretty astronomical for the club to have not even considered it during the window? I'm guessing a bit like the one Chelsea paid to Man Utd 'not' to sign Sancho last summer?
-
I hope not, as if true the fella is only going to be available for a couple more games. What a ridiculous situation we’ve got in with this loan.
-
Wonder what our threshold is with the £ numbers.
We pay him...£50k a week(?) til June 30th ie £1m over 5 months for a max of 2 more appearances.
Or we pay Liverpool £5m (?) plus the £1m in wages for up to about 20 appearances.
-
It's a terrible situation for Elliott. Villa should never have agreed to such a deal and Liverpool are shameful in not looking out for one of their own players. I can't believe a deal can't be agreed between the two clubs.
-
It's a terrible situation for Elliott. Villa should never have agreed to such a deal and Liverpool are shameful in not looking out for one of their own players. I can't believe a deal can't be agreed between the two clubs.
It was our deal. We wanted to buy him. Liverpool wanted to sell him to us.
The deal was structured so that we could buy him from them without upsetting UEFA, but ballsed it up.
Liverpool have done nothing wrong, apart from being a bit naive.
-
Unfortunately neither club want him. We’ll pay and play him but not buy him. Liverpool wont play him and don’t want him playing for us unless we buy him.
Unfortunately I think a big part is down to the FFP restrictions. It’s more the opportunity cost of what we could get with the money rather than buying him per say
-
Agreed. It was rubbish negotiating with zero contingency. As it is, I can't see him playing for us again if 2-3 players are fit next week.
-
I wonder if Dean Smith will still come in for him for a few months in March or whatever it is? I don't know the logistics, though. Liverpool still probably wouldn't want to help us out to let that happen (as is their perogative).
-
I wonder if Dean Smith will still come in for him for a few months in March or whatever it is? I don't know the logistics, though. Liverpool still probably wouldn't want to help us out to let that happen (as is their perogative).
It’d probably be to Liverpool’s advantage if he were to get some games and maintain his value. That’s if you can cancel a loan out of a transfer window, presume you can?
-
I wonder if Dean Smith will still come in for him for a few months in March or whatever it is? I don't know the logistics, though. Liverpool still probably wouldn't want to help us out to let that happen (as is their perogative).
It’d probably be to Liverpool’s advantage if he were to get some games and maintain his value. That’s if you can cancel a loan out of a transfer window, presume you can?
I do not think you can.
-
It's a terrible situation for Elliott. Villa should never have agreed to such a deal and Liverpool are shameful in not looking out for one of their own players. I can't believe a deal can't be agreed between the two clubs.
It was our deal. We wanted to buy him. Liverpool wanted to sell him to us.
The deal was structured so that we could buy him from them without upsetting UEFA, but ballsed it up.
Liverpool have done nothing wrong, apart from being a bit naive.
I disagree. We're FAR from an innocent party here, but until the point he becomes OUR player, he's still THEIR player, and they are acting to the detriment of their player right now. To say they've done nothing wrong is wildly inaccurate, in my opinion.
How many loans have been terminated this window because the players weren't playing enough? Liverpool are making him stay here purely in the hope we get desperate and need to play him, triggering the £35m. Unai has made it clear that's not happening. And to be clear, both parties are well within their rights to take those positions, given that's what the agreement says.
But it's a failure on BOTH parties not to reach an agreement that prevents the player from losing an entire season of his career, for no reason other than the clubs can't find a way to let him play another dozen or so games.
Remember, we haven't reneged on a deal here - we've chosen not to complete the deal WITHIN the terms set out when he signed. Not playing him for 10 games was ALWAYS an option available to us. A shitty option, but an option nonetheless. There was always the slim possibility that the permanent deal wouldn't go ahead. He could have got a serious injury early in the season, for example.
Whatever happens, if Harvey isn't free to contribute for the second half of the season (either here, or at Liverpool), it'll be a pretty shameful chapter in our history, and Liverpool's.
-
Knowing how meticulous Unai is, it seems pretty obvious he had no say whatsoever in the signing of Elliott.
He would have known Elliot’s strengths and weaknesses before signing and therefore known he didn’t fit in with our system.
However, if he did sanction the move, it reflects pretty badly on him.
I suspect this is on Monchi and is his legacy, well, I hope that is the case.
-
It was set as it is, because it was very much intended to be a permanent transfer, but we needed a way round PSR. For whatever reason, it’s us that have utilised the existence of the clause to back out. Our approach is pretty ordinary here. The clause is there so we can do what we like, but is very clearly not acting in the spirit of the agreement that was reached.
-
So, does anyone know if it’s 10 PL appearances or all comps?
So far he’s played 4 PL, 1 CC, 2 EL.
-
Whatever happens, if Harvey isn't free to contribute for the second half of the season (either here, or at Liverpool), it'll be a pretty shameful chapter in our history, and Liverpool's.
Not ideal but shameful….I’ve told you a million times do not exaggerate.
-
Whatever happens, if Harvey isn't free to contribute for the second half of the season (either here, or at Liverpool), it'll be a pretty shameful chapter in our history, and Liverpool's.
Not ideal but shameful….I’ve told you a million times do not exaggerate.
(https://www.indiewire.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/mayall-1.png)
-
So, does anyone know if it’s 10 PL appearances or all comps?
So far he’s played 4 PL, 1 CC, 2 EL.
I thought your namesake in the press would know, but he seems to be breadcrumbing us.
-
Cheers Monchi, you fucking idiot.
-
He reminds me of Barry Bannan a bit. Tons of skill, but little in the way of physicality or pace.
Nail on head.
It's always confused me when they say the Championship is a physcial league, when players like Bannan can do very well there and I'm sure Elliot would too.
It maybe used to be the case but nowdays the Premier League players are like decathletes with a decent touch.
In Ollie’s case, he’s even managed it without the touch. #smirk
-
The good thing is its only a clause so it can still be negotiated after the window is shut
-
So, does anyone know if it’s 10 PL appearances or all comps?
So far he’s played 4 PL, 1 CC, 2 EL.
Almost academic since I don't think Emery will play him. Without a change to the loan-agreement, the guy's going to get frozen out (in the nicest possible way), and I - like Smithy above - think that his parent-club has a duty of care which it appears to have failed on. Villa is not without a share of the responsibility on this as well.
-
Tom Collomose in the Mail reporting that we and Liverpool are now discussing the terms of the loan with a view to amending them as at present, it suits no party.
Which kind of begs the question of why has it taken so long as presumably, these discussions have nothing to do with the transfer window.
Probably because we were hoping they’d call him back so we could het another loan
They didn’t want to do that as it’d help us and they’re trying to catch us
But they might be more willing to talk over removing the clause as if he doesn’t play he loses value
Really sad all round
Can we change the terms of the loan outside the transfer window? It FEELS like that wouldn't be allowed, but this entire loan situation has been so strange I really wouldn't know.
I don’t know but I can’t see why not as he, for the time being, is simply registered to play for us. We are taking the decision not to play him. I’d guess the PL are not aware of the 10 game clause in the agreement and don’t need to be.
Maybe…
-
Unfortunately it will be a case where he's likely left in limbo. Liverpool as of now have not been willing to move any details of his loan agreement. Even though window is closed we can still sort it but as of now nothing has changed
I expect he is being used for Feb to cover a few injuries (mcginn and tilly) maybe almost max out his appearances if we feel using him helps the now and then come march hes back in the wilderness
Feel sorry for him to be fair and all noises out are hes been an absolute professional about it all - so well done Harvey
-
The only positive thing to come out of this shambolic situation is the attitude of Harvey Elliott!
-
Please sort this mess out and get him playing !
-
The only positive thing to come out of this shambolic situation is the attitude of Harvey Elliott!
Agree.
It really should have not got to this.
Piss poor by whoever was involved in this transaction
-
The only positive thing to come out of this shambolic situation is the attitude of Harvey Elliott!
Agree.
It really should have not got to this.
Piss poor by whoever was involved in this transaction
All of them were involved ! hopefully a lesson learned by all
-
If Elliott plays in a number of matches this year, is it not impossible to sell him for £30m in the summer, thus solving everybody’s problems?
-
That would certainly be possible. I don't think we can sign a deal with a potential new club before we have officially signed him, though, so it would open us to lose money if he gets injured or loses form and his would-be suitors change their mind.
-
That would certainly be possible. I don't think we can sign a deal with a potential new club before we have officially signed him, though, so it would open us to lose money if he gets injured or loses form and his would-be suitors change their mind.
Yes but you can still negotiate i believe as we did with tammy. We were negotiating before he was even confirmed by beskitas as their player
-
A pretty decent summary of the situation from The Athletic
Harvey Elliott: What now?
There’s a saying in football that ‘the nice guys finish last’. If true, Harvey Elliott might have to consider changing his ways.
The transfer deadline came and went last night with no move for Elliott, whose season-long loan move from Liverpool to Aston Villa — signed last summer, shortly after his standout performance in England under-21s’ European Championship victory — has turned into a nightmare.
Elliott, 22, has been frozen out by manager Unai Emery for much of the season, largely due to appearance-related clauses written into that deal.
Should he reach 10 appearances, Villa would be obliged to pay a fee they say is £30million (Liverpool say £35m) to make the move permanent this summer, a commitment Emery has little intention of sanctioning.
Elliott is now up to seven appearances after featuring in the last two games following a midfield injury crisis, but the amount of time left for him to make an impact is limited.
Sources close to Elliott, speaking anonymously to protect their positions, say he hoped for an early return to Anfield as he was unable to join another European club after representing both Villa and Liverpool this season.
That would have required the agreement to be terminated, but with no recall clause in place, Villa would have had to pay a fee to do so, something they were unwilling to consider. Liverpool, for their part, did not want to waive it. Elliott waited for a compromise that never came before the deadline passed.
Despite his frustration, Elliott has refused to down tools. He remains both a tough trainer and a polite, friendly presence around the club, where he’s unlikely to have any long-term future.
This has turned into a sad story for one of England’s brightest young players, who won the player of the tournament award at the Euros and was only allowed to leave Liverpool on the summer deadline day once a record-breaking deal for Alexander Isak was secured.
When he signed, there was an expectation that he would be a key figure at Villa this season, but things quickly changed as Emery, who failed to land his preferred target in Lucas Paqueta, focused on other tried and trusted performers in his position.
With Elliott staying at Villa until the end of the season, the remaining months of the campaign may become even more difficult, with Emery unlikely to change his stance.
It was on a trip to the venue where Elliott first announced himself that his season began to implode.
He was desperate to make an impact for Villa and a start against former employers Fulham in late September looked like the ideal opportunity.
Just 12 days earlier, Elliott had scored Villa’s first goal of the season and even reacted positively to some surprisingly sharp criticism from Emery, who singled out his decision-making after a difficult day at Sunderland. Emery had been irked, in particular, by a diagonal pass that went out of play for a throw-in.
At Fulham, however, it was other attributes that went against Elliott, as he was hauled off after just 45 minutes with the scores tied at 1-1.
To those in the stands, Elliott hadn’t done much wrong as he moved the ball neatly from his right No 10 position and successfully completed 16 of his 17 passes. Yet Emery — an intense and demanding coach — asks for specific traits from his No 10s, including the ability to shield the ball from opponents and defend as intelligently as a full-back while also offering a clear goal threat.
The manager, who has all the authority at Villa, decided very quickly that Elliott wasn’t matching up and there was no obvious place for him to fit into his strongest team. With a number of clauses inserted into the loan deal, including a specific number of appearances before and after January 1 that would trigger an obligation to buy, Emery decided against the idea of a permanent move, and therefore stopped selecting him.
If the agreement had been a straight loan, Elliott might have had other opportunities to feature, and perhaps more of a chance to show that he could adjust his game to suit Emery’s demands, but the structure of the deal, designed to help with Villa’s battle to comply with profit and sustainability rules (PSR), made it difficult.
Until last week, Elliott had been stuck on three Premier League appearances and five in all competitions since October 2. His last involvement in the Premier League had come at Fulham, where Villa turned the game around in the second half without him to win 3-1 and kickstart their season.
“We decided two months ago that we are not convinced to sign him, spending the money we would need to,” Emery said in a press conference on January 2.
When asked last weekend if the situation had changed after Elliott’s start against Red Bull Salzburg in the Europa League and substitute appearance in the 1-0 defeat to Brentford, Emery said it remained the same, even with crippling injuries to midfielders Boubacar Kamara, John McGinn and Youri Tielemans.
The bottom line is that Emery doesn’t trust Elliott to carry out his specific tactical instructions and prefers other players instead.
Although Elliott had been heavily recommended by Villa’s scouting and data department for some time, he was not a top target for Emery and the deal only came about late into the summer transfer window when the relationship with former sporting director Monchi was already breaking down, and Villa were desperate for players after a worrying start to the season.
When he arrived, Villa were bottom of the table and hadn’t scored a goal. Their transformation into title contenders also went against him as Emery favoured Morgan Rogers and McGinn as his starting No 10s, with Emi Buendia, Tielemans, Jadon Sancho and Ross Barkley all offering enough in support.
It all became a slow-burning nightmare for Elliott, who started to recognise his fate late into October when Villa lost 2-1 to Go Ahead Eagles in the Europa League and he wasn’t even called off the bench.
He then only made the matchday squad on two other occasions — both in the Europa League — but failed to get on, and watched as youngsters George Hemmings and Jamaldeen Jimoh-Aloba were selected ahead of him for games around the festive period.
To his credit, Elliott remained professional throughout and earned respect from players and staff at the club for the way he handled a difficult time. He trained hard and contributed to activities within the community, including the club’s hospital visits over Christmas, and was a supportive presence for his team-mates at matches.
To train every day with the first team for around three months and be the only player not considered was particularly bruising, especially as moving to Villa was supposed to be a fresh start.
He had been reluctant to leave Liverpool, the team he helped become champions last season. Elliott made 147 appearances for the club and contributed at important moments, but was never recognised as a first-choice starter.
German side RB Leipzig were interested in signing him last summer, but the move to Villa, and remaining in the Premier League, held greater appeal.
After his standout performances for England Under-21s, Elliott’s aim was to push for Thomas Tuchel’s senior World Cup squad this summer. When he moved to Villa, that seemed a realistic aim: instead, his season has unravelled and it has, understandably, been difficult to take.
To succeed under Emery as an attacking wide player, Elliott needed to be a physical monster (like Rogers and McGinn), able to cover lots of ground, drive forward, and be diligent defensively.
He’s not the first attacking midfielder or winger to struggle under Emery. Philippe Coutinho, Moussa Diaby and, to a lesser extent, Leon Bailey, all fell out of favour. Tielemans also needed three months at the club before he started a game in the Premier League, so seeing a player struggle in that position is nothing new.
For the time being, unless both clubs agree to any future changes to the agreement, Elliott seems to have run out of options.
The fact that he came on as an 89th-minute replacement for Liverpool at Newcastle in August means he cannot represent another team this season — making it one of the season’s more consequential late substitutions — and while he could join an MLS side for the start of their 2026 campaign, when Charlotte FC expressed an interest in offering him an escape route last month, he was not interested.
The suggestion that Elliott is simply not cut out for the Premier League following an aggressive shift towards physicality and set-piece domination is lazy, but there’s no hiding that Villa was simply not the right fit.
For his age, he’s not only got time on his side, but also plenty of experience in big moments after winning six trophies with Liverpool. A player with his technical brilliance should also not fall away after one disappointing season, but no doubt he will have to pick his next move more carefully.
There’s no winner in this current messy situation, but Elliott should not be written off. The quicker he can get back to showing his worth on the pitch, as well as off it, the better.
-
So essentially, as you were.
-
Id prefer Elliot to Paqueta to be fair.
Weird , alot of people saying Elliot is nowhere near worth 35 million , maybe 2o yet we sign Guessand at 30 million who looks like he is worth a panini sticker book and villa subuteo team and half a carling.
-
Isn't the irony in this situation that amongst all the doom and gloom around last summer's transfer window most commentators, and probably many on here, felt the one redeeming feature was the last minute capture of a highly promising young English forward?
-
Its funny - Unai seems to have very exact requirements of what he wants - and quite quickly decides against them.
Im assuming that why Monchi went - maybe he wasnt happy with the targets he got from the shortlists they drew up.
-
Guessand wasn't and will never be £30m.
-
Its funny - Unai seems to have very exact requirements of what he wants - and quite quickly decides against them.
Im assuming that why Monchi went - maybe he wasnt happy with the targets he got from the shortlists they drew up.
He wanted Asensio back instead I suspect.
-
With how much we’ve wasted on guessand and elliot we surely could have afforded Asensio?
-
Just play him when needed and pay the money, easily worth £30 million in today’s market. Very good player with re-sell value
-
Like Ive said before , another injury to say Buendia or Rogers , we wont have no choice but to play him.
-
The talented playmaker no-one seems to want
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/c62reew4k21o
-
Play him where, yammers? We've one of, if not the best midfields on their day, something the article fails to mention. Even with the injuries, who does he replace?
'A player with his technical brilliance' should be playing for Liverpool la. I can only assume the article was a Villa/Liverpool collaboration as a lovely chap that he obviously is, he offers very little more than some of our youngsters. Experience being the main one. I wish him nothing but the best but as they say in Yorkshire, 'gi' over' with the bullshit.
Look at where we are in the league despite at times having a clanger or two from our keeper and defence and an attacking line that has included a miss firing centre forward for a large part of the season to date, a fella on the right that looks like he won a competition to play and we may as well have been playing with ten men, it's been our midfield that have not only supplied the goals, battled like true warriors but also been an absolute joy to watch. All fit, I wouldn't swap any of them.
-
Its funny - Unai seems to have very exact requirements of what he wants - and quite quickly decides against them.
Im assuming that why Monchi went - maybe he wasnt happy with the targets he got from the shortlists they drew up.
He wanted Asensio back instead I suspect.
And Paqueta, bizarrely.
-
With how much we’ve wasted on guessand and elliot we surely could have afforded Asensio?
The talk on here was that we did want him and had told him that, but that we would have to sell before we could do the deal for him so if he got another offer, as it happened from Fenerbache, to not wait for an offer from us that might not be coming.
-
Its funny - Unai seems to have very exact requirements of what he wants - and quite quickly decides against them.
Im assuming that why Monchi went - maybe he wasnt happy with the targets he got from the shortlists they drew up.
He wanted Asensio back instead I suspect.
And Paqueta, bizarrely.
Shoving Rogers out wide to accommodate one of those show ponies. I'm backing Monchi on Elliot being a better bet for the club than those two.
Elliot has been unfortunate as Sancho and Guessand were given every chance and wasted pretty much all of them.
-
With how much we’ve wasted on guessand and elliot we surely could have afforded Asensio?
From what I vaguely remember hearing about Asensio, he wanted to come back, and we wanted him, but we kept him waiting to see if we could afford him. He didn’t want to wait until the last day in case it fell through and he was left in limbo at PSG. So with a few days left he got fed up and signed for Fenerbache.
Point taken on Guessand, but Elliott has only cost us wages. So maybe Asensio’s wages, not the fee, caused an accounting problem against SCR, whereas Guessand’s didn’t.
-
With how much we’ve wasted on guessand and elliot we surely could have afforded Asensio?
The talk on here was that we did want him and had told him that, but that we would have to sell before we could do the deal for him so if he got another offer, as it happened from Fenerbache, to not wait for an offer from us that might not be coming.
Ah, I now see PW beat me to it.
-
Although the muted discussion about renegotiating the 10 game clause led nowhere, does that mean it cant be revisited?
I just wonder come march, and he just isn't getting any game time, and his value plummets, would Liverpool rethink? Would that be allowed ? ( Notwithstanding I get the argument why should they help us as a competitor)
-
If we start to play him on regular basis, do we think he would be motivated to stay if we offered him a deal ?
-
Although the muted discussion about renegotiating the 10 game clause led nowhere, does that mean it cant be revisited?
I just wonder come march, and he just isn't getting any game time, and his value plummets, would Liverpool rethink? Would that be allowed ? ( Notwithstanding I get the argument why should they help us as a competitor)
'For the time being, unless both clubs agree to any future changes to the agreement, Elliott seems to have run out of options.'
That line from the article suggests it is still viable, although I'd still say pretty unlikely.
-
£35mil is a lot of money - if it was £15mil then it may have been a different sort of season for the lad
-
Liverpool and Villa can change the games played trigger of the loan agreement.
-
Shoving Rogers out wide to accommodate one of those show ponies. I'm backing Monchi on Elliot being a better bet for the club than those two.
Elliot has been unfortunate as Sancho and Guessand were given every chance and wasted pretty much all of them.
Correct.
£35mil is a lot of money - if it was £15mil then it may have been a different sort of season for the lad
Your point would be valid if we hadn't spunked £25-30m on The Lump, and paid £220k pw on the largely-ineffectual Sancho.
Last summer, Elliott's stock was high and many people saw him as an emerging international talent. We've somewhat rubbed the gloss off that; to say the least.
-
We are relying on Rogers far too much, it's a case for oppositions to stop Rogers and stop us, and having him moved wide left made him easy to mark, we needed him in the centre as he looked like the only player likely to score for us. Do not mind Emery being demanding that players play to his instructions, likely he made his mind up abot Elliot early on in training, how this did not apply to Guessand early is puzzling.
-
Liverpool and Villa can change the games played trigger of the loan agreement.
Not sure Liverpool will want to help us have a player who could perhaps help us keep them out of the CL spots.
-
We are relying on Rogers far too much, it's a case for oppositions to stop Rogers and stop us, and having him moved wide left made him easy to mark, we needed him in the centre as he looked like the only player likely to score for us. Do not mind Emery being demanding that players play to his instructions, likely he made his mind up abot Elliot early on in training, how this did not apply to Guessand early is puzzling.
Against Brentford, I thought moving Rogers to the left helped because he couldn't get on the ball in the centre. It didn't work obviously, but I could understand the logic.
-
Liverpool and Villa can change the games played trigger of the loan agreement.
Do we have a definitive source for this? I'd like to believe it's true - and if true, it would explain why there was no urgency around it in January - but it does feel like any "change" to a loan agreement would have to be done in a transfer window?
-
We are relying on Rogers far too much, it's a case for oppositions to stop Rogers and stop us, and having him moved wide left made him easy to mark, we needed him in the centre as he looked like the only player likely to score for us. Do not mind Emery being demanding that players play to his instructions, likely he made his mind up abot Elliot early on in training, how this did not apply to Guessand early is puzzling.
Against Brentford, I thought moving Rogers to the left helped because he couldn't get on the ball in the centre. It didn't work obviously, but I could understand the logic.
Trying to get him in position for one of his "cut inside and curl it into the far corner" efforts.
-
We are relying on Rogers far too much, it's a case for oppositions to stop Rogers and stop us, and having him moved wide left made him easy to mark, we needed him in the centre as he looked like the only player likely to score for us. Do not mind Emery being demanding that players play to his instructions, likely he made his mind up abot Elliot early on in training, how this did not apply to Guessand early is puzzling.
Against Brentford, I thought moving Rogers to the left helped because he couldn't get on the ball in the centre. It didn't work obviously, but I could understand the logic.
Trying to get him in position for one of his "cut inside and curl it into the far corner" efforts.
He did try to be fair but Brentford were wise to that switch and I think Rogers was tiring by then. Swapping Bailey and himself might have given them something different to think about but that's not a move Emery is keen on.
-
Liverpool and Villa can change the games played trigger of the loan agreement.
Do we have a definitive source for this? I'd like to believe it's true - and if true, it would explain why there was no urgency around it in January - but it does feel like any "change" to a loan agreement would have to be done in a transfer window?
Yes, the window is purely about player registration, so long as he's still registered as a Villa player until June the contract can be altered in anyway that us and Liverpool agree.
-
You'd think they could at least allow us to amend the clause so it is only domestic games that count. Villa playing extra rounds in Europe doesn't hurt them and there are some scenarios where Villa winning the Europa League are beneficial to them, depending on where they finish. If we get through and Liverpool go out, perhaps they might also consider allowing us to play him in the FA Cup.
-
That's a good point. Keeps him in the shop window too if they want to try and preserve his value.
-
You'd think they could at least allow us to amend the clause so it is only domestic games that count. Villa playing extra rounds in Europe doesn't hurt them and there are some scenarios where Villa winning the Europa League are beneficial to them, depending on where they finish. If we get through and Liverpool go out, perhaps they might also consider allowing us to play him in the FA Cup.
That would strengthen us in the league though, which is where we're competing with them, so I'm guessing they wouldn't want that.
We've seen him play twice recently. I wonder if Emery is now resigned to paying the fee with a view to moving him on again in the summer if we can. It's important that the deal wasn't triggered before the end of the year for UEFA SCR rules, and maybe that's why the 5 before and 5 after clause was put in.
Whatever the situation, it's unsatisfactory. He's looked tidy, nothing more, but looked good for Liverpool and England U21.
-
My take is that Emery has been pragmatic lately and played Elliott when we have had the horrible midfield injury crisis. Onana and Barkley too risky on Sunday and he wants the youngsters learning their trade on loan so he bit the bullet and played Elliott, even if he isn’t in his future plans.
If he has played 6 ish games so far that leaves 3 more match involvements without triggering the buy clause. I think Unai is crossing his fingers and hoping we have enough fit bodies to see us through towards the end of the season ( Barkley now, McGinn and Tielemans in 6-8 weeks) and will use his 3 Elliott games in the next few weeks.
-
My take is that Emery has been pragmatic lately and played Elliott when we have had the horrible midfield injury crisis. Onana and Barkley too risky on Sunday and he wants the youngsters learning their trade on loan so he bit the bullet and played Elliott, even if he isn’t in his future plans.
If he has played 6 ish games so far that leaves 3 more match involvements without triggering the buy clause. I think Unai is crossing his fingers and hoping we have enough fit bodies to see us through towards the end of the season ( Barkley now, McGinn and Tielemans in 6-8 weeks) and will use his 3 Elliott games in the next few weeks.
Yes, I think that's spot on.
-
I think it's 2 more games unless Europe doesn't count.
-
Liverpool and Villa can change the games played trigger of the loan agreement.
Do we have a definitive source for this? I'd like to believe it's true - and if true, it would explain why there was no urgency around it in January - but it does feel like any "change" to a loan agreement would have to be done in a transfer window?
I know nothing, but hope it is the same as a player renegotiating the terms of their contract between windows, which happens all the time.
-
Unai has clearly made up his mind. Unless something has massively changed we're not signing him.
Why would liverpool help us out by removing the constraint. Similarly, why would we help Liverpool out by signing a player that on review isnt what we wanted.
Probably we would have bought him outright if the restriction werent in place. Liverpool and the sky 6 wanted these restriction so I dont think we have done anything wrong in the scheme of things.
Well done to Harvey for his effort. Hell have a very successful career but it must be rough for him.
-
Is there an argument for trying to renegotiate the actual fee itself, rather than adjusting the loan component.
It's reported in various places as either £35 million. Or £30 million with add ons.
Say we got that down to £28 mill with add ons.
Personally I'd do that deal.
Even if he doesn't smash it for the second half of this season and next, he'd be a useful player + cash deal for A.N Other player we may target in the domestic market or the Bundesliga (where he had interest last summer) etc.
He might just do a Bunedia and prove Emery wrong in the meantime.
-
Is there an argument for trying to renegotiate the actual fee itself, rather than adjusting the loan component.
It's reported in various places as either £35 million. Or £30 million with add ons.
Say we got that down to £28 mill with add ons.
Personally I'd do that deal.
Even if he doesn't smash it for the second half of this season and next, he'd be a useful player + cash deal for A.N Other player we may target in the domestic market or the Bundesliga etc.
He might just to a Bunedia and prove Emery wrong in the meantime.
If Unai doesn’t rate him and doesn’t want him he will be off at the end of the loan period.
-
Is there an argument for trying to renegotiate the actual fee itself, rather than adjusting the loan component.
It's reported in various places as either £35 million. Or £30 million with add ons.
Say we got that down to £28 mill with add ons.
Personally I'd do that deal.
Even if he doesn't smash it for the second half of this season and next, he'd be a useful player + cash deal for A.N Other player we may target in the domestic market or the Bundesliga (where he had interest last summer) etc.
He might just do a Bunedia and prove Emery wrong in the meantime.
I think the value that Unai see's is less than liverpool would sell him for. I would think we would be talking more like 15m - 20m (i.e. a rotation player). We need to treat players that are 25+ as first team. Hence why players like Malen and Guessard have been moved on
-
We're in a different world now, 25+ doesn't necessarily give you guaranteed starters anymore, that's not to say that wasn't the plan with him. I still have no issue with the value.
-
We're in a different world now, 25+ doesn't necessarily give you guaranteed starters anymore, that's not to say that wasn't the plan with him. I still have no issue with the value.
No nor me. I see him as no better or worse than Buendia, so he isn’t needed, but I don’t see why he’s worth less.
-
We're in a different world now, 25+ doesn't necessarily give you guaranteed starters anymore, that's not to say that wasn't the plan with him. I still have no issue with the value.
No not me. I see him as no better or worse than Buendia, so he isn’t needed, but I don’t see why he’s worth less.
He's seven years younger than Buendia so there is that. Plenty of scope to improve. Emery seems to have dug himself into a hole of his own making here. But still turned to him to save the game v Brentford. Like any transfer if it doesn't work we could move him on after giving him a fair go, see Guessand, and I don't think we lose out too much on the deal.
-
If Unai doesn’t rate him and doesn’t want him he will be off at the end of the loan period.
He didn't seem to rate Buendia ... life loves a redemption song.
Get the fee right and Elliott could become a very useful player for us (and England).
-
(It's nobody at Aston Villa's job to give a single fuck about the England team.)
-
Maybe, but over the years, plenty of players have left and amongst the reasons they have given is that there is more chance of international recognition at other clubs. Although it was always more likely they left for more money.
-
(It's nobody at Aston Villa's job to give a single fuck about the England team.)
Hence the use of parentheses.
-
Even when we signed him I thought 35m was pretty extortionate. I'm not going to say either way whether that valuation was fair based on his time here because he's barely had a run in the team. If not for the clause, he'd have at least been given a similar amount of leeway to prove himself as Guessand had.
Whole things a mess. Either way, we may well have our hand forced if Buendia get's injured.
-
I've not seen anything to suggest he looks a £35m player, definitely not in a Villa shirt.
-
Even when we signed him I thought 35m was pretty extortionate. I'm not going to say either way whether that valuation was fair based on his time here because he's barely had a run in the team. If not for the clause, he'd have at least been given a similar amount of leeway to prove himself as Guessand had.
Whole things a mess. Either way, we may well have our hand forced if Buendia get's injured.
On the basis that we are running pretty tight to PSR , i doubt that we have the capacity to trigger the transfer cost this side of 30 June 26.
-
He's been screwed over by an insane clause in his contract. If it was a straight obligation to buy, he'd be getting games. If the number of games was vaguely reasonable (30 league appearances, something like that) then he'd be getting games.
That we don't have to buy him, and there's a really low threshold to the point when we do, means that he either needed to hit the ground running straight away (which feels unlikely given most of our signings take a few months to settle in) or be frozen out. No room for error, it was either all or nothing.
I feel for the guy, the whole thing is a mess, it's none of his doing but he is going to have to deal with the consequences anyway.
All this said - whilst I have a great deal of sympathy with the guy, we're not a charity for top-5-squad-player footballers. He's just going to have to wait out this season and hope another club comes in for him over the summer.
-
Remember that Liverpool are a family club with class and would never treat any of its players like this
-
I think they are, at most, 10% to blame.
-
I think they are, at most, 10% to blame.
Their only mistake is in naively believing that they'd structured the deal in such a way that meant we would definitely end up buying him.
Rather than just telling us that our accounting issues were our problem, and selling him to Leipzig or somebody.
-
We signed him, we agreed to the terms. That we then don't like it it is completely on us.
-
We signed him, we agreed to the terms. That we then don't like it it is completely on us.
Can't help but agree. Can make all the excuses we like with regards Monchis supposed failings in how the deal was structured or how Emery never wanted him in the first place, but they're essentially ways of dressing up a really shitty deal.
We agreed to the 10 game activation which undoubtedly was put in to appease both parties. Liverpool all but guarantee the sale of an unwanted asset and we get to push him over to next years books.
Liverpool not wanting to write out the clause is fair enough. Why set the precedent? Why strengthen a rival who they're relying on to drop points?
-
We signed him, we agreed to the terms. That we then don't like it it is completely on us.
Absolutely as did everyone and we have a get out if we don't think he is worth the investment and obviously we don't
-
Perhaps he should have a word with his advisers about agreeing these terms.
-
I would bet good money (at least four English pounds) that more than one agent has said "we don't want to end up with a Harvey Elliott-type situation", or words to that effect, to a club in the most recent transfer window.
-
Perhaps he should have a word with his advisers about agreeing these terms.
I expect that he will have done. They'll probably have countered with "but Harvey, you said you wanted to join Villa and this was the only way that they could 'afford' to buy you".
-
I would bet good money (at least four English pounds) that more than one agent has said "we don't want to end up with a Harvey Elliott-type situation", or words to that effect, to a club in the most recent transfer window.
yes we certainly have flagged up a deal like this
-
Perhaps he should have a word with his advisers about agreeing these terms.
Perhaps our sporting director could have spoken to our manager to check everyone was happy for the deal to proceed as agreed. Who knows, maybe that did happen, which would raise further questions.
-
Perhaps he should have a word with his advisers about agreeing these terms.
I expect that he will have done. They'll probably have countered with "but Harvey, you said you wanted to join Villa and this was the only way that they could 'afford' to buy you".
Indeed - and I think this is the point that seems to get overlooked a bit. When the deal was agreed, there’s no way the 10 games clause was designed as a get out if he didn’t hit the ground running. This was intended to be a permanent transfer that was structured as a loan to help our financial reg issues. The fact we’re using that clause to renege on the deal is something we can obviously do, but if I were another club I’d be pretty cautious in any dealings with us.
-
The bit that bothers also me about this deal is in the future how might other players view us as a play to come and play on loan. Will they be hesitant to join because they might find themselves in a similar predicament?
I don’t exonerate Emery from this and lay the blame exclusively at Monchi’s door as some might do. If we believe Emery for the power he has at the club, for bringing players in and for the deals that go well like Rogers for example, then he should be accountable for something like this where I very much doubt it was agreed to behind his back.
-
The bit that bothers also me about this deal is in the future how might other players view us as a play to come and play on loan. Will they be hesitant to join because they might find themselves in a similar predicament?
I don’t exonerate Emery from this and lay the blame exclusively at Monchi’s door as some might do. If we believe Emery for the power he has at the club, for bringing players in and for the deals that go well like Rogers for example, then he should be accountable for something like this where I very much doubt it was agreed to behind his back.
It's not just Elliot. I dont think Emery ever got Malen back onside after the CL squad debacle.
But we are odds on for yet another season of qualifying for European football so there is that.
-
The Malen thing was unfortunate too. I mean I see why that was made in the end but not understanding, if that’s what it was that we could only switch out 3 players for the CL squad was poor by us. And if it was intentional then it doesn’t make it any better. We need to be much better at incoming transfers because as we have all discussed at length the vast majority of the starting line up was inherited by Unai and they are all getting older together. We need to be able to bring in starting players in the next few windows not just players to buy and sell quickly.
-
The bit that bothers also me about this deal is in the future how might other players view us as a play to come and play on loan. Will they be hesitant to join because they might find themselves in a similar predicament?
I don’t exonerate Emery from this and lay the blame exclusively at Monchi’s door as some might do. If we believe Emery for the power he has at the club, for bringing players in and for the deals that go well like Rogers for example, then he should be accountable for something like this where I very much doubt it was agreed to behind his back.
Couldn't agree more. All this tip toeing around laying the blame anywhere near Emerys feet is daft. He's just as accountable for the deal and it's failings as Monchi. More so, if anything.
-
I'm getting real Mandelson vibes here. I wonder whether Emery will make it until the FA Cup 4th round. He's going to have to lose Pako at the very least, he's poison out here in the shires.
-
I wonder if this balls up by Monchi, along with forcing Ramsey out was the end of his time here??
-
See I don’t buy that. Monchi was said to have some personal interests in Spain also that he wanted to pursue. Monchi certainly played his role in how our transfers played out. And we can all question some of them. But there were quite a few that looked at independently worked out very well for us. Ramsey had a contract he didn’t sign. We fucked up at Man U so it put our summer into the shitter. So decisions had to be made and Ramsey was clearly an unpopular one but from a PSR standpoint made sense. The whole Emi thing too. That could have been handled better by all parties.
-
Given the apparent terms of the loan, and our injury situation, bringing him on for just a few minutes v Brentford last Sunday seems very odd indeed.
-
Re Malen did not the sales of Duran and Diego add more restrictions to the CL squad?
Agree bringing on Harvey last weekend for a cameo role seemed a bit odd/wasteful
-
Re Malen did not the sales of Duran and Diego add more restrictions to the CL squad?
Agree bringing on Harvey last weekend for a cameo role seemed a bit odd/wasteful
It didn't add any extra restrictions. We just weren't able to add more then three players, regardless of who we removed having sold / loaned them.
-
Re Malen did not the sales of Duran and Diego add more restrictions to the CL squad?
Agree bringing on Harvey last weekend for a cameo role seemed a bit odd/wasteful
It didn't add any extra restrictions. We just weren't able to add more then three players, regardless of who we removed having sold / loaned them.
Sorry if I’m being a bit slow on the uptake but if Diego had stayed we would not have to add Disasi so could that have left a place for Malen?
-
Re Malen did not the sales of Duran and Diego add more restrictions to the CL squad?
Agree bringing on Harvey last weekend for a cameo role seemed a bit odd/wasteful
It didn't add any extra restrictions. We just weren't able to add more then three players, regardless of who we removed having sold / loaned them.
Sorry if I’m being a bit slow on the uptake but if Diego had stayed we would not have to add Disasi so could that have left a place for Malen?
Yes, that's true. I wouldn't describe it as "adding a restriction" though. Just "not needing to replace anyone player that we sold"
-
Townsley has tweeted that Harvey stays in our European squad while Roscoe misses out again 😪
-
Townsley has tweeted that Harvey stays in our European squad while Roscoe misses out again 😪
But we're not putting Barkley in ahead of DL, Tammy or Bailey, are we?
-
No, but I can still feel bad for him about it.
-
Aston Villa manager Unai Emery has appealed to Liverpool to change the terms of Harvey Elliott’s loan after admitting the current situation is “damaging” the 22-year-old.
Last month, Emery acknowledged there was a reluctance for Elliott to play more games, with the Liverpool loanee needing to play 10 matches in order for Villa to trigger the obligation to buy him.
Emery acknowledged that the current situation on Friday — with Elliott only able to play three more games before Villa’s obligation is triggered — “is not fair” on the midfielder.
"It can change for him, if Liverpool take off this clause. If they don't want to, the player gets damaged."
Jacob Tanswell - The Athletic
-
Apparently we have been talking to Liverpool for three months to remove the obligation clause. Liverpool have refused to. Emery wants to play him but won’t have the obligation remains. We shouldn’t have signed him on loan with the clause. But clearly we won’t as is. What’s done is done but it surely makes sense for Liverpool more than us to have the clause removed. He gets playing time and the player retains or even improves his value.
-
What’s done is done but it surely makes sense for Liverpool more than us to have the clause removed. He gets playing time and the player retains or even improves his value.
I’m surprised so many Villa fans think this. What if he helps us beat Liverpool to the CL spots?
Doesn’t anyone remember Mick Ferguson?
-
Agreed.
As a Thought Experiment, let's imagine Villa were roughly were Liverpool are in the league, just on the brink of the Champions League spots. Let's also imagine Newcastle were where we are, a few points clear but hardly in an uncatchable position. Let's say we had loaned them Jacob Ramsey, with exactly the same clauses as were applied in the Elliott deal. Now say Howe had decided, after a handful of appearances, that he's not sure about him and doesn't want to give him too many more games for fear of triggering the fee.
In these circumstances, how many Villa fans would be in favour of amending the clause to help Newcastle (and Ramsey) out, and how many would be saying "fuck Newcastle, they knew what they signed up for"?
I suspect the latter option would have won about 99% in any H&V vote.
-
What’s done is done but it surely makes sense for Liverpool more than us to have the clause removed. He gets playing time and the player retains or even improves his value.
I’m surprised so many Villa fans think this. What if he helps us beat Liverpool to the CL spots?
Doesn’t anyone remember Mick Ferguson?
You'd have to be a really, really stupid club run by really, really, stupid people to have anything like that happen to you.
-
Well I imagine that plays into it. But then it’s no different to any other loan player. Or that top players wouldn’t move between top clubs. My point about what’s done is some is that we can’t undo the initial deal. And it’s Harvey Elliott not Salah or some other player of greater and obvious significance. In the end Liverpool don’t have to do anything. But Elliott will go back at the end of this no way a £35M player to whoever they try to move him on to.
-
He'll go back and they'll sell him for £20m-£25m. That £10m-£15m is worth it to scupper us and increase their chances of catching us and them gaining Champions League.
-
What’s done is done but it surely makes sense for Liverpool more than us to have the clause removed. He gets playing time and the player retains or even improves his value.
I’m surprised so many Villa fans think this. What if he helps us beat Liverpool to the CL spots?
Doesn’t anyone remember Mick Ferguson?
If they are worried about him making that sort of impact, they should consider paying us a fee to cancel and getting him back in that squad that has many injuries.
I think this screams slot to be honest. Villa in the window were probably happy to send him back, rumours are he wanted to go back, Liverpool as a club would probably do right by him and take him back, I just think slot has made his mind up on him. Liverpool have injuries as well, they had to play their best player at RB the other day, so there's clearly a place for him if only on the bench. He was a kloop boy wasn't he and slot does strike me a bit of a "it's my way" type of guy
-
More Emery quotes in the full article:
Aston Villa manager Unai Emery has appealed to Liverpool to change the terms of Harvey Elliott’s loan after admitting the current situation is “damaging” the 22-year-old.
Last month, Emery acknowledged there was a reluctance for Elliott to play more games, with the Liverpool loanee needing to play 10 matches in order for Villa to trigger the obligation to buy him.
Villa sources, speaking on the condition of anonymity, insisted the fee was closer to £30million ($41.3m), while Liverpool said it was £35m ($48.2m). Elliott has played five times this season, but had not featured in a matchday squad, prior to Villa’s trip to Newcastle on Sunday, since November.
The Athletic reported on deadline day that the former England Under-21 international would be staying at Villa, despite no progress being made on changing the terms of the existing agreement. If Villa wished to end the loan, they would have to pay a termination fee, while Liverpool did not want to recall Elliott during the transfer window. Both teams can agree to a change in loan terms outside of the window.
Emery acknowledged that the current situation on Friday — with Elliott only able to play three more games before Villa’s obligation is triggered — “is not fair” on the midfielder.
“I spoke with him,” said Emery ahead of Villa’s trip to Bournemouth. “We have been fair because there are two ways. One way is a sport, the second is business. We’ll be fair in case, because we are trying it. I spoke a few times with Harvey.
“Harvey, now I am opening the door to play with us, because he can help us. But it’s not only on my side. The other side is Liverpool. If they are taking off the clauses, they have to play matches and to buy him compulsory. (I said to him) ‘You are going to play here with us, it’s a sport decision.’
“But now it’s a sport decision and a business decision. My sport decision is still there — ‘you are deserving to play, we need your qualities in the field, you are going to play’. But in this case, the clauses are still there and now it is Liverpool, they have the key. And I told him it will be fair for him for Liverpool to take off this clause.”
Emery opened up on Villa’s efforts to change the terms and remove the 10-game threshold, which he said had been discussed more than three months ago. There remains no breakthrough in talks, however, with Liverpool and Villa battling it out for a Champions League spot.
“We are speaking about it (taking off the clause) but not now,” the Spaniard added. “We started speaking about it three months ago. The transfer window finished on Monday. It will be fair for him, because he’s a calm guy, a good guy, and he’s a fantastic professional. And his qualities are there.
“Of course, he must play, and he’s really being passionate. And I know we are damaging him, because we got a deal with Liverpool in the summer and the deal is there, and we are taking the decision responsibly from my side.”
Since returning to the matchday squad away to Newcastle United a fortnight ago after being absent for three months, Elliott has featured in the previous two matches. This has been partly influenced by Villa’s depleted midfield options, with Boubacar Kamara, Youri Tielemans and John McGinn all unavailable.
Villa sit third in the Premier League, six points ahead of fifth-placed Chelsea.
-
Sounds to me like he's managing it as well as he could be expected to. You feel for Elliott.
-
What’s done is done but it surely makes sense for Liverpool more than us to have the clause removed. He gets playing time and the player retains or even improves his value.
I’m surprised so many Villa fans think this. What if he helps us beat Liverpool to the CL spots?
Doesn’t anyone remember Mick Ferguson?
If they are worried about him making that sort of impact, they should consider paying us a fee to cancel and getting him back in that squad that has many injuries.
I think this screams slot to be honest. Villa in the window were probably happy to send him back, rumours are he wanted to go back, Liverpool as a club would probably do right by him and take him back, I just think slot has made his mind up on him. Liverpool have injuries as well, they had to play their best player at RB the other day, so there's clearly a place for him if only on the bench. He was a kloop boy wasn't he and slot does strike me a bit of a "it's my way" type of guy
But...that's still fine, isn't it? If Slot doesn't particularly want to use him or play him then you move him on to a new club. No different to us selling Cameron Archer.
They thought they'd sold him last summer. They helped out both us and the player last August by structuring the sale in such a way that recognised our financial limitations and six months later there is no suggestion that Liverpool do want him back. Their preference would be that we play him in two more games and complete the deal that they thought they'd agreed to in August.
That we've now had second thoughts and don't want to do that with a player that they don't want is really not their problem. They'll sell him in the summer to someone and think twice next time we ask them to help us out with something.
And Elliott will undoubtledy be extra fired up every time he comes up against us in the future.
-
I wonder if something snkeay has been done with this so called unhelpful clause....
for us to register him for the remainder of the Europa League whilst having to remove Barkley suggests that he could comfortably make the appearances rumoured for us to trigger the £35mil deal (or perhaps the deal is now a lot lower than £35mil)
-
I wonder if something snkeay has been done with this so called unhelpful clause....
for us to register him for the remainder of the Europa League whilst having to remove Barkley suggests that he could comfortably make the appearances rumoured for us to trigger the £35mil deal (or perhaps the deal is now a lot lower than £35mil)
Barkley wasn't in the original squad and Elliott was, so we can't add him. Unless we chose not to add Bailey, DL or Tammy.
-
What’s done is done but it surely makes sense for Liverpool more than us to have the clause removed. He gets playing time and the player retains or even improves his value.
I’m surprised so many Villa fans think this. What if he helps us beat Liverpool to the CL spots?
Doesn’t anyone remember Mick Ferguson?
If they are worried about him making that sort of impact, they should consider paying us a fee to cancel and getting him back in that squad that has many injuries.
I think this screams slot to be honest. Villa in the window were probably happy to send him back, rumours are he wanted to go back, Liverpool as a club would probably do right by him and take him back, I just think slot has made his mind up on him. Liverpool have injuries as well, they had to play their best player at RB the other day, so there's clearly a place for him if only on the bench. He was a kloop boy wasn't he and slot does strike me a bit of a "it's my way" type of guy
But...that's still fine, isn't it? If Slot doesn't particularly want to use him or play him then you move him on to a new club. No different to us selling Cameron Archer.
They thought they'd sold him last summer. They helped out both us and the player last August by structuring the sale in such a way that recognised our financial limitations and six months later there is no suggestion that Liverpool do want him back. Their preference would be that we play him in two more games and complete the deal that they thought they'd agreed to in August.
That we've now had second thoughts and don't want to do that with a player that they don't want is really not their problem. They'll sell him in the summer to someone and think twice next time we ask them to help us out with something.
And Elliott will undoubtledy be extra fired up every time he comes up against us in the future.
So...are we the baddies?
-
To the extent that there is blame that needs to be handed out, yes. Ultimately though, all we're doing is what we think is currently in the best interests of our club, like any other club would do.
But this one-eyed version of events where Liverpool are somehow "not looking after the interests of their player" and should behave differently, is definitely bollocks.
-
Villa: We want to sign Elliott but we can't this summer due to financial rules, any suggestions to help us?
Liverpool: As he wants to join you and you want to sign him how about we structure it as a loan with 10 apps triggering an obligation to buy?
Villa: That's great, thanks.
Months later
Villa: Us again, we don't want to sign him now so haven't played him for months but we've got a load of injuries so needs must. Can you change things to help us?
Liverpool: Fuck off.
-
The solution is clear: at what price does Emery think he's worth adding to the squad? - let's say £25m (roughly, the Guessand cost). Hmmm, that's about what Liverpool will get for him in the summer; so, recut the deal with Villa to make it an option to buy at £25m.
Simples.
-
Villa: We want to sign Elliott but we can't this summer due to financial rules, any suggestions to help us?
Liverpool: As he wants to join you and you want to sign him how about we structure it as a loan with 10 apps triggering an obligation to buy?
Villa: That's great, thanks.
Months later
Villa: Us again, we don't want to sign him now so haven't played him for months but we've got a load of injuries so needs must. Can you change things to help us?
Liverpool: Fuck off.
Indeed.
-
I thought the loan period would take us up to January, a new financial period and then we could afford to pay the £35M.
It sounds like Emery still wants the player.
We have definitely made a mess of this deal.
Hope we can sign him, he seems like a decent character, but I wouldn’t blame him if he tells to do one.
-
The solution is clear: at what price does Emery think he's worth adding to the squad? - let's say £25m (roughly, the Guessand cost). Hmmm, that's about what Liverpool will get for him in the summer; so, recut the deal with Villa to make it an option to buy at £25m.
Simples.
One of the other weird things in this whole debacle is that the clubs can't agree on what the actual agreed transfer fee was - the Athletic have reported on numerous occasions that Liverpool say it was £35m and Villa say it was £30m.
If only there was a contract that laid out all the terms. We're clearly having issues with both reading/understanding it and sticking to it.
-
Yet you just know that if crystal palace were to not play Guessand until villa removed the obligation to buy, a fair few villa fans would be calling for them to do it so he can put himself in the shop window.
-
Liverpool are in a bit of a predicament.
They'd previously assumed that they could book £30/35m in their accounts having 'sold' Elliott at the peak of his value.
We've said no. So that's not going to happen.
So, do they stick to the agreement, ir agreement a change?
Scenario One:
We don't play him and in the summer he goes back to Liverpool who then have to decide if they want him back - to reintegrate into their squad (with him knowing that Slot wanted him gone), or try and sell him again when his value will have gone down.
Scenario Two:
Liverpool and Villa reach an agreement (we'll probably have to pay a fee) whereby the 10 game purchase obligation is removed. He gets to play for us, stays in the shop window and (hopefully) does well - preserving his value, so that when he goes back to Liverpool there's a queue of prospective buyers prepared to pay £25-30m for him.
They're well within their rights NOT to change the deal, but that would be cutting off their nose to spite their face.
In modern day Premier League football money usually talks ...
-
It’s a strange one as the general consensus here seems we’re the bad guys, but I’ve see lots of chatter online from Liverpool fans saying they are the baddies in this.
-
The solution is clear: at what price does Emery think he's worth adding to the squad? - let's say £25m (roughly, the Guessand cost). Hmmm, that's about what Liverpool will get for him in the summer; so, recut the deal with Villa to make it an option to buy at £25m.
Simples.
I imagine Liverpool would hope to get more like what they agreed with us. And even if they don't, there's no point giving us an extra advantage for the rest of the season.
I don't think Elliott's stock will really have fallen and the teams that wanted him last summer will probably still want him next summer.
-
Whether it's principle or pragmatism, they're clearly happy to take a hit if necessary and hold us to the deal.
Can't say I blame them.
-
I don't see why Elliot's value will have gone down, all that's happened is that one coach has not wanted to pay that sum for him. Doesn't mean there aren't others who would be prepared to pay that amount, for a player who you'd imagine would be fired up to prove a point.
-
It’s a strange one as the general consensus here seems we’re the bad guys, but I’ve see lots of chatter online from Liverpool fans saying they are the baddies in this.
To be fair to Liverpool I don't see how. We wanted him. We fully understood the terms of the agreement under which we signed him and then we suddenly got cold feet. I honestly feel sorry for the player in all this.
-
The thing that bothers me most about this whole conversation is how much of it ends up with people being certain that 2 multi-million companies with billionaire owners will be driven by spite.
-
Not on the bench today. His work is done, no agreement reached, we have cover now so I don't expect to see him again, may as well fuck him home to Merseyside.
-
It’s a mess, I’d rather have him available than not, but then I don’t know the money situation and if we spend money on him I guess it messes up the next transfer window?
It’s a nightmare, we lose three players and have to wheel and deal, where as Man City buy the best winger and defender and Arsenal have over 100m on the bench.
Man Utd are looking good, which let’s face it, that team has cost an absolute fortune.
-
...and Arsenal have over 100m on the bench.
We had about £120m on our bench.
-
...and Arsenal have over 100m on the bench.
We had about £120m on our bench.
I meant the players that didn’t even get onto the pitch. Their bench was phenomenal against us at their place.
All I’m saying, the three injuries we’ve been dealt with have hit us both physically and mentally. We really need a lift.
-
It's a shame about the clause and our position because I'd rather see what he could do than seeing Bailey coming on. I know what he's like 2/3rds of the time...
-
The thing that bothers me most about this whole conversation is how much of it ends up with people being certain that 2 multi-million companies with billionaire owners will be driven by spite.
I haven’t really clocked that. Aren’t they all just trying to act in their clubs’ best interest?
-
Clause only counts PL games, meaning he can play in EL games. And (I’m guessing) five more PL games? (Four appearances so far).
-
Clause only counts PL games, meaning he can play in EL games. And (I’m guessing) five more PL games? (Four appearances so far).
My dad just text me that, said he'd seen it on SSN. Needs a statement from Tanswell or the like before I believe it.
-
Clause only counts PL games, meaning he can play in EL games. And (I’m guessing) five more PL games? (Four appearances so far).
My dad just text me that, said he'd seen it on SSN. Needs a statement from Tanswell or the like before I believe it.
Townley & Rob Jones on SSN said it if that’s any good.
-
Apparently if he makes 5 league appearances in the second half of the season, that also triggers it.
-
Clause only counts PL games, meaning he can play in EL games. And (I’m guessing) five more PL games? (Four appearances so far).
Wasn't Dave adamant that wasn't the case? He's usually right about everything.
-
Clause only counts PL games, meaning he can play in EL games. And (I’m guessing) five more PL games? (Four appearances so far).
Wasn't Dave adamant that wasn't the case? He's usually right about everything.
I wouldn't say adamant. I definitely made the point that if it does apply only to Premier League games, there's no reason that he wasn't being used in European games*. Or against say, Newcastle last weekend. And that local journalists have spent the last six months fumbling about and guessing what the precise nature of the clauses are, because they didn't know.
Points (particularly the latter one) which I feel haven't exactly been refuted. They either didn't know what they were talking about before, or don't know what they're talking about now. Or most likely, both.
*edit - no reason apart from Emery thinking he was rubbish
-
So as alot of us suspected. Monchi signing, Liverpool didn't want to help for obvious reasons
https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1AtV8Vq3dp/
-
Odd for Emery to bring him back in for Brentford and bomb him out again. Id play him over Sancho or Bailey anyway.
-
So as alot of us suspected. Monchi signing, Liverpool didn't want to help for obvious reasons
https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1AtV8Vq3dp/
Yes, people being baffled by this for months on end has been quite baffling.
-
So as alot of us suspected. Monchi signing, Liverpool didn't want to help for obvious reasons
https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1AtV8Vq3dp/
Yes, people being baffled by this for months on end has been quite baffling.
Agreed. This would also tally with the recent "he can play in europa"
That seems like that was agreed recently with Liverpool. We would have used him more in europe otherwise
-
I think what's baffling is the thought that we won't give him PL minutes but are open to dropping him into a EL knock out game.
Our season needs an urgent lift, with very little football played it's a punt but preferable to Bailey or Sancho. Qualify for CL and Elliot contributes - it's surely worth it