I think the most likely thing is the 10 game clause is removed - well then stop avoiding playing him whilst still playing - if he impresses will sell him or someone will buy him.
The second most likely is another PL club has agreed to a similar deal and happy to take him for the second half of the season.
As above, the second definitely isn't happening.
The first, sure - that's good for us. But unless we paid Liverpool something to make it worth their while to agree to it...why would they agree to it? They agreed to set the deal up this way to help our skin-of-our-teeth financial strategy. Messing people around, who we will inevitably deal with again in the future will get remembered and talked about.
Feels a lot like when everyone thought it was hilarious that Chelsea were paying Man Utd millions of pounds to not have to sign Jadon Sancho.
Yep, I think if we don’t put this through by essentially using the 10 game clause as a get out, which was very obviously not the intention of it, then it might cause us issues dealing with clubs in future. At the very least it’ll make them think twice.
Liverpool will agree to it because having a 35m player in the bomb squad at a "lesser" team for a season will reduce his value. If he gets to play for us - he may a) really impress us and we decide to buy him, b) impress someone else. Sitting in our reserves just buts a question mark over him as a player to other suiters.
I get the point that it may make us look like the kind of club that you cant do business with - but I think we can easily get round that by explaining it to other clubs as a disconnect between Monchi and Unai which has been resolved, or Elliot being way shitter than we could have ever imagined.
Alternatively we may agree a deal that means we may a slightly higher loan fee without the need to buy, so we can use him more freely. But ultimately that fact hes not showing he's worth 35m to us is not our problem
