Harvey Elliott (signed on loan)

[eamonn]

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.

[Percy McCarthy]

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.

[Drummond]

Though we'd been linked with him a good while before that.

[brontebilly]

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.

[ASHTONVILLA]

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.

[AV82EC]

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.

[eamonn]

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.

[Dave]

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.

[eamonn]

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?

[Dave]

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".

[Dante Lavelli]

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.

[Beard82]

I guess in Jan we’ll either alter the agreement - to drop the composary purchase or send him back

[Dave]

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.

[KevinGage]

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.

[jwarry]

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