Harvey Elliott (signed on loan)

[SaddVillan]

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?

[OCD]

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?"

[Martyn Smith]

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

[PaulWinch again]

Is there actually any basis to that? Or is it assumed?

[Smithy]

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?

[Dante Lavelli]

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.

[Smithy]

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!

[Somniloquism]

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.

[cdbearsfan]

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.

[PaulWinch again]

I don’t we’d play him in that either way.