Harvey Elliott (signed on loan)

[Duncan Shaw]

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.

[Somniloquism]

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.

[Drummond]

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?

[Dave]

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?

[Drummond]

Because they want the money sooner and if they don't get it, then they weaken the opposition.

[Somniloquism]

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.

[paul_e]

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.

[Sexual Ealing]

If the clause exists, it's possible it only applies to PL games, I guess.

[Dave]

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.

[paul_e]

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.

[Sexual Ealing]

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.

[eamonn]

It's The Athletic originally isn't it, or are they owned by the NYT?

[Sexual Ealing]

They bought it.