Harvey Elliott (signed on loan)

[Dave]

I guess it is the beauty of a loan signing .  We have looked at him , he is good but not worth spending  £35 million in that department becasue we are well stocked.  Lets allocate that money elsewhere

Yeah, this.  We've looked at him, he hasn't done enough to justify spaffing £35m on.  Maybe if Liverpool had put a more sane playing clause in he might've had more chance to play himself in to form as it were.  But the 10 game clause meant he needed to hit the ground running, and he hasn't done that.  Shit happens, I don't think it's our fault that there's a daft clause in there as I can't see us having petitioned for it.  This one is on Liverpool's mad negotiation tactics IMO.

Their aim was to sell him to someone last summer.

We wanted to sign him but our restrictions stopped us from signing him permanently when they wanted us to, so they structured the deal to suit our accounting requirements.

This isn't their "mad negotiation tactics", this is closer to us welching on the deal as everyone involved understood it.

Which doesn't matter, we've (as things stand) taken advantage of that fact, so good on us.

But if there is any "blame" to hand out, it's on us, not them.

Assuming:
- There's a 10 game clause
- We wanted the deal this way to avoid spending the money in 2025
- UEFA consider the cost incurred as soon as the clause is triggered

If all of that is true as expected then the biggest problem is the number of games. By restricting it to 10 we couldn't have used him much more than we have even if he was brilliant and we are 100% behind a permanent transfer. As soon as that was agreed there was always a risk he was going to end up forgotten because we will have played 26 games by the time we could trigger the clause so he was, at best, available for about 40%. 20 or even 25 games would've been a much more sensible number for everyone involved.

Undoubtedly. Clearly none of the three parties involved thought through the implications of their clever plan and how it would actually work in practice.

But ultimately, the end result is next time we want to do something clever the other club is going to tell us where to get off.

I remember back in the early Lerner years it was a source of (possibly misplaced) pride on here how we went about things "the right way" and how it was claimed that clubs wanted to deal with us because of we didn't mess them around. This is the opposite of that.

edit - obviously not to the extent that they won't sell us players. But it's not hard to pick up a reputation.

[Sexual Ealing]

I’m sure it won’t be that difficult to pin it all on Monchi.

[kippaxvilla2]

He seems such a lovely chap in that video.  I feel sorry for him.

[PaulWinch again]

Yep I think it’s undeniable that it’s not a good look from a reputation perspective.

[SamTheMouse]

Clearly none of the three parties involved thought through the implications of their clever plan and how it would actually work in practice.

Seems like the sort of thing that happens when clubs are desperately trying to move a player on/sign pretty much anyone with just a few hours left before the transfer window closes.

[VILLA MOLE]

I am not sure we have done anything wrong other than work in the parameters of the deal. All 3 parties would have agreed  to this knowing the potential consequences. So I am glad we are not forced into buying someone the manager clearly dose not want.   

[RamboandBruno]

I’m sure it won’t be that difficult to pin it all on Monchi.

Kaiser Sosa

[VILLA MOLE]

I’m sure it won’t be that difficult to pin it all on Monchi.

Kaiser Sosa

why is he not limping anymore ??

[Duncan Shaw]

I do feel sorry for the player though.

[Smithy]

There are two ways to look at this, one is that we've welched on a deal that was 99% certain to be confirmed, and left a young and promising player in career limbo and the selling club pissed at us for not completing the deal as it was originally agreed in summer. 

The other way to look at it is that we've avoided spending £35m on a player Unai doesn't want (or thinks is the best use of that money).  Without FFP restrictions, it's entirely possible Harvey would already be a Villa player, at £35m, and be labelled a big-money flop by some of us because Unai doesn't fancy him or doesn't trust him in his team.

When transfers don't work out, there is never a "good" solution, but of the two options above, I'm much happier with the club following the first approach, than the second.

I still think Harvey is a very talented player, who will have an excellent top flight career, but it's clear Unai has either been told "don't play him as we can't afford to trigger the clause", or simply doesn't fancy him long-term, having seen him in training.

In an ideal world, we come to some arrangement that either sees him go back to Liverpool in January and fight for minutes with them (more likely if Salah goes), or second best we pay a more acceptable "loan fee" for the season so we can actually play him without having to commit to buy him - but the latter obviously risks us having a very unmotivated player on our hands.  He knows he's not wanted, so why would he bust a gut for us now?

It's a real shame it hasn't worked out.

[john2710]

The simple fact is he hasn't been good enough to displace the players in front of him.
We're not in the position to spend £35m on someone who isn't an improvement.

[brontebilly]

I guess it is the beauty of a loan signing .  We have looked at him , he is good but not worth spending  £35 million in that department becasue we are well stocked.  Lets allocate that money elsewhere

Yeah, this.  We've looked at him, he hasn't done enough to justify spaffing £35m on.  Maybe if Liverpool had put a more sane playing clause in he might've had more chance to play himself in to form as it were.  But the 10 game clause meant he needed to hit the ground running, and he hasn't done that.  Shit happens, I don't think it's our fault that there's a daft clause in there as I can't see us having petitioned for it.  This one is on Liverpool's mad negotiation tactics IMO.

Their aim was to sell him to someone last summer.

We wanted to sign him but our restrictions stopped us from signing him permanently when they wanted us to, so they structured the deal to suit our accounting requirements.

This isn't their "mad negotiation tactics", this is closer to us welching on the deal as everyone involved understood it.

Which doesn't matter, we've (as things stand) taken advantage of that fact, so good on us.

But if there is any "blame" to hand out, it's on us, not them.

Id be thinking Elliot probably has grounds for a case against us. This isn't a footballing decision anyway, he's barely got a chance while others like Guessand and Sancho have got plenty despite really poor performances. Even if he was having issues off the pitch, Barkley was brought straight back into the group after his "personal issue". It's a horrible way to treat another human or even employee.

If your assessment is correct, and I imagine it's close to the mark as Liverpool would have tried to do right by Elliot, clubs are going to very cautious dealing with us going forward in similar situations.

[PeterWithe]

Yep I think it’s undeniable that it’s not a good look from a reputation perspective.

This is where I am, his treatment has been shabby and the whole scenario reflects on us poorly. But, in the wider scheme of things, I'm not going to worry about it too much.

[Dave]

There are two ways to look at this, one is that we've welched on a deal that was 99% certain to be confirmed, and left a young and promising player in career limbo and the selling club pissed at us for not completing the deal as it was originally agreed in summer. 

The other way to look at it is that we've avoided spending £35m on a player Unai doesn't want (or thinks is the best use of that money).  Without FFP restrictions, it's entirely possible Harvey would already be a Villa player, at £35m, and be labelled a big-money flop by some of us because Unai doesn't fancy him or doesn't trust him in his team.

When transfers don't work out, there is never a "good" solution, but of the two options above, I'm much happier with the club following the first approach, than the second.

I still think Harvey is a very talented player, who will have an excellent top flight career, but it's clear Unai has either been told "don't play him as we can't afford to trigger the clause", or simply doesn't fancy him long-term, having seen him in training.

In an ideal world, we come to some arrangement that either sees him go back to Liverpool in January and fight for minutes with them (more likely if Salah goes), or second best we pay a more acceptable "loan fee" for the season so we can actually play him without having to commit to buy him - but the latter obviously risks us having a very unmotivated player on our hands.  He knows he's not wanted, so why would he bust a gut for us now?

It's a real shame it hasn't worked out.

Yup, all of that.

I wonder how much of it is the situation spiralling. He's not brilliant (who was, at the start of the season?), so finds it hard to get minutes. That means he's less important to us. That means he feels less wanted. That means he's not trying as much as he could. That means he doesn't get picked. That means he's even less important to us. That means we start to think about whether we actually want to buy him after all. That means the manager is less bothered about integrating him into the system. That means he doesn't look as good in training.

And so on.

[PeterWithe]

That all seems a reasonable guess, and even UE's positive comments about him can be explained by him not wanting to burn bridges if an injury crisis means he is needed.