Harvey Elliott (signed on loan)

[Dave]

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.

[Brazilian Villain]

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.

[SamTheMouse]

I'd bet the farm on him going back to Liverpool.

They need all the help they can get at the moment.

[paul_e]

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.

[Sexual Ealing]

To be fair to the player?

[PaulWinch again]

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.

[AV82EC]

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.

[Beard82]

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

[Sexual Ealing]

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."

[eamonn]

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.

[SamTheMouse]

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.

[pauliewalnuts]

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.

[paul_e]

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.

[eamonn]

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.

[eamonn]

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.