Harvey Elliott (signed on loan)

[paul_e]

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.

[PeterWithesShin]

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.

[Dante Lavelli]

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?

[AV82EC]

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.

[Bully2345]

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

[Drummond]

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?

[Dante Lavelli]

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).

[algy]

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?

[Bully2345]

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

[Dave]

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?

[eye digress]

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.

[Dave]

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.

[Rigadon]

If he was impressing in training he’d be in the squad / team.