collapse collapse

Please donate to help towards the costs of keeping this site going. Thank You.

Recent Topics

Other Villa stuff by paul_e
[Today at 08:42:14 AM]


Austin MacPhee by PeterWithe
[Today at 08:26:10 AM]


Harvey Elliott (signed on loan) by PeterWithe
[Today at 08:23:41 AM]


Aston Villa v Young Boys Pre-Match Thread by RamboandBruno
[Today at 07:35:54 AM]


Villa Park Redevelopment by claret+blue ed
[Today at 07:34:47 AM]


Other Games 2025-26 by Rigadon
[Today at 06:15:31 AM]


Winter 25-26 Transfer Window - hopes, speculation, rumours etc. by London Villan
[Today at 05:52:15 AM]


Reserves and Academy 2025-26 by dcdavecollett
[Today at 02:05:08 AM]

Recent Posts

Follow us on...

Author Topic: Harvey Elliott (signed on loan)  (Read 57285 times)

Offline pauliewalnuts

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 75204
  • GM : 22.10.2026
Re: Harvey Elliott (signed on loan)
« Reply #810 on: November 26, 2025, 11:48:18 PM »
Yep, JJ went because we needed the extra financial injection from 40m or whatever it was for a homegrown player.

Except Damian has said that we offered him a new deal but he refused to sign it. So had he done so, would we have sold someone else? Or just not bought Guessand? Fine by me.

Well, that doesn't rule it out as an explanation, in fact, it makes it more likely - we have a player refusing a new deal, who represents PSR gold.

He was home grown, sell him and we bank the entirety of the 40m fee in this year's accounts. We then go and absolutely waste spend 30m on Guessand on (guessing here) a 5 year deal, and we're taking a 6m a year hit to the accounts.

Keeping JJ rather than buying another player was much more than just a "is this player better than that one" comparison.

I get that but our preference was to keep him. I was speculating on what we would have done had we come to an agreement as it was touch and go whether he'd leave or not and this was mid-August. What do you think we'd have done had we not sold him?

Only thing I can think of, to meet UEFAs rules with two weeks to go, would have been to let Martínez go on the cheap to Yanited or refuse loans for Bailey but take less for a transfer fee than we wanted.

Yep, we'd have had to sell someon else.

Offline Matt C

  • Member
  • Posts: 6309
  • Location: Southern California
  • GM : 18.06.2020
Re: Harvey Elliott (signed on loan)
« Reply #811 on: Today at 12:19:37 AM »
Move Martinez or Bailey on earlier in the summer - which seems to have been the assumed path but didn’t happen (a loan offer for Emi and cooled Saudi interest in Bailey) - and Ramsey would still be here.

Offline lovejoy

  • Member
  • Posts: 9742
  • Location: Haywards Heath
Re: Harvey Elliott (signed on loan)
« Reply #812 on: Today at 07:46:11 AM »
Contractually I am not sure of the position. His transfer was reported as a loan with obligation to buy (after 10 appearances)??
Do we know for sure in he doesn’t make 10 appearances by January Liverpool need to take him back? I haven’t seen this confirmed anywhere. If Slot doesn’t fancy him then aren’t we just stuck with his wages?

Offline PeterWithe

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 11105
  • Location: Birmingham.
  • GM : 05.03.2026
Re: Harvey Elliott (signed on loan)
« Reply #813 on: Today at 08:23:41 AM »
The 10 game clause is clearly the issue. He's gone by Christmas.

I know it's a minor point, but I don't think he'd have been in the Xmas video if he were heading back to Anfield in a few weeks.
Wouldnt it have be recorded months ago?

I mean, as these things go it’s alright, but it’s not Ben Hur. They’d have knocked it off in afternoon.

 


SimplePortal 2.3.6 © 2008-2014, SimplePortal