Harvey Elliott (signed on loan)

[paul_e]

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?

Given some other stuff that's happened (i.e. not being able to add Malen to the UCL squad) it could be that we didn't know exactly how the rule would work and only found out for sure that the cost would go into the year the clause was met (rather than when it was paid) after those early appearances, which is why we became much more sparing with him after that.

For me the main thing is that Emery keeps saying he's happy with him and he's training well and is just taking some time to get up to speed with how we play and what's expected of him. He might be lying but I personally choose to believe him (because I think he's earned that trust).

[eamonn]

Regardless of him being in the 2025 or 2026 accounts, it wouldn't be an immediate £30m hit, would it? It would be split over the course of his contract. If its 4 years, that's less than a £10m hit to each year's costs.

Are we that close to the limit where we'd rather forego what he could bring to the team so that none of his cost is in our 2025 numbers?

[algy]

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

Not if him getting minutes resulted in us breaching the Uefa rules.

He would at least be getting on the bench if it wasn't for the risk of the crystallisation of the £35m. You don't go from being a squad player for a team that wins the league and being player of the tournament at the U21's to not even making our bench.

Yeah, but then if we were limited to him only playing 10 games before 1st February, why would we even consider putting him on in the 90-whatever minute against Feyenoord?  Wouldn't we have been better saving that for if, heaven forbid, Buendia or Rogers (for example) picked up an injury?  Why waste an appearance in a game where we were leading 2-0 with 4 minutes to go?

I mean, maybe it was 10 league appearances - but then why was Hemmings on the bench in favour of him against Leeds?  It's not like he's that likely to breach those league appearances before 1st January (he'd have to appear in literally every game for that to happen).

Or even by 1st February for that matter, since he'd have to appear in 7 of the 11 games ... which doesn't seem that likely if he's a substitute.  You could surely keep him on the subs bench as an option if that were the case?

[Dave]

For me the main thing is that Emery keeps saying he's happy with him and he's training well and is just taking some time to get up to speed with how we play and what's expected of him. He might be lying but I personally choose to believe him (because I think he's earned that trust).

But if it were the other one - I don't think he'd say anything different. I don't think he's going to say in an interview "actually, turns out he's not right for us after all so we're avoiding playing him so we don't have to buy him". It makes everyone involved look like twats, so no benefit comes from saying so.

Ultimately - we're clearly not playing him because of this ten game thing in the contract. It's either that do want to sign him but want to push the signing into a new calendar year or that we don't want to sign him so we're making sure he never hits ten matches.

Not wanting to sign him logically tallies with him not making the bench ahead of youth team players. Wanting to sign him but just a bit later than originally planned, doesn't in my opinion. If we see him as a part of our future from January 1st, why isn't he there instead of Hemmings?

[Dave]

I mean, maybe it was 10 league appearances - but then why was Hemmings on the bench in favour of him against Leeds?

Or even use matches against Maccabi and Go Ahead Eagles as an excellent opportunity to ease him into the team.

[SoccerHQ]

He is clearly going back on Jan 1st.

Ironically Slot putting him on in 96th minute v Newcastle has probably knackered his season more than the issues here as now he can't play for anyone else this season.

Will just have to take his chances back at Liverpool. Salah will be at AFCON when he goes back there.

[paul_e]

For me the main thing is that Emery keeps saying he's happy with him and he's training well and is just taking some time to get up to speed with how we play and what's expected of him. He might be lying but I personally choose to believe him (because I think he's earned that trust).

But if it were the other one - I don't think he'd say anything different. I don't think he's going to say in an interview "actually, turns out he's not right for us after all so we're avoiding playing him so we don't have to buy him". It makes everyone involved look like twats, so no benefit comes from saying so.

Ultimately - we're clearly not playing him because of this ten game thing in the contract. It's either that do want to sign him but want to push the signing into a new calendar year or that we don't want to sign him so we're making sure he never hits ten matches.

Not wanting to sign him logically tallies with him not making the bench ahead of youth team players. Wanting to sign him but just a bit later than originally planned, doesn't in my opinion. If we see him as a part of our future from January 1st, why isn't he there instead of Hemmings?

I suspect that spot on the bench was intended for Onana if he was fit and when he wasn't quite there we wanted someone more like-for-like because we already had Sancho, Guessand, Barkley and Malen on the bench as subs for the front 4. Giving Elliott a spot as well just means we'd have left ourselves short of options in the more defensive positions. I get that it looks like a slight though, and maybe it is, but for me Barkley coming back and having a few really good performances off the bench is the main reason Elliott isn't getting a spot.

[Dave]

Guess we'll find out one way or the other in January.

Personally however, I wouldn't be putting much money on his Villa career being a long one.

[London Villan]

He might be exactly what liverpool need at the moment…

[Somniloquism]

Regardless of him being in the 2025 or 2026 accounts, it wouldn't be an immediate £30m hit, would it? It would be split over the course of his contract. If its 4 years, that's less than a £10m hit to each year's costs.

Are we that close to the limit where we'd rather forego what he could bring to the team so that none of his cost is in our 2025 numbers?

Part of the deal wasn't the account figures as such, it was ensuring we were net postive on the transfer values for 2025. We are currently about 20mil in the green but if the Elliot figure went in we are suddenly 10mil in the red. I'm assuming we need to either sell again in Jan or hope we can get money in from somewhere to stay positive in Jan.

[eamonn]

But don't the net transfer values reflect amortised values only (i.e a quarter of the contract) and not full transfer costs in one hit?

[Beard82]

I think they just dont see him as an upgrade on little Emi.

Why would we spend what little budget we have if thats the case. 

[kippaxvilla2]

Little emi, Little budget equals little of Harvey.

[Holy Trinity]

I think he goes back in Jan 100%, we are not going to buy him and we are trashing his value for Liverpool

[PeterWithesShin]

We may not be able to send him back, and Liverpool may not be able to recall him. It's far from certain he'll be back there in Jan. I think it's unlikely he can go back as the only reason it was a loan was to help us so the contract probably has no clauses for him going back.