Harvey Elliott (signed on loan)

[Beard82]

To be honest - I think some of it is due to the constraints of FFP - I don’t think we acted in bad faith it just we simply have to be ruthless because buying him would most likely see use selling someone else and it’s not worth it.

If we werent under those constraints I think we would have bought him out right - he would have played a bit more and we would probably all think he’s a waste of money like Guessard.

Unai did give him a chance but he clearly didn’t like what he sees.   He seems to do that with some players and far me it from me to judge him. 

[VILLA MOLE]

I am not sure we have treated him shabbily . As far as we know  he is not playing because he is not playing as well as others

[brontebilly]

I am not sure we have treated him shabbily . As far as we know  he is not playing because he is not playing as well as others

The thing is we don't know as he has barely got a chance, not even getting picked in EL squads says it all . He did score ironically enough v Brentford, bright enough that night from memory.

[Clampy]

I am not sure we have treated him shabbily . As far as we know  he is not playing because he is not playing as well as others

But he's not playing at all so how can you tell that?

[VILLA MOLE]

I am not sure we have treated him shabbily . As far as we know  he is not playing because he is not playing as well as others

The thing is we don't know as he has barely got a chance, not even getting picked in EL squads says it all . He did score ironically enough v Brentford, bright enough that night from memory.

Yes hard to judge on early season as everyone was playing poorly but obviously Unai seems him in training everyday and has weighed it up.  Obviously we cant have a £35 million squad player

[VILLA MOLE]

I am not sure we have treated him shabbily . As far as we know  he is not playing because he is not playing as well as others

But he's not playing at all so how can you tell that?

I cant but the manager does in training i  guess

[paul_e]

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.

You've posted a lot of silly things over the years but that bold bit is up there with the dumbest things I've ever read on here.

[PeterWithesShin]

We're doing what's best for us which is what you'd expect, we're the closest to being the baddies in this scenario though.

[usav]

As usual people are sticking to the two extremes, where why can't both things be true?  He's probably not good enough or doesn't fit Emery's system, but he's also been treated pretty badly.  "We" wanted him, signed him on loan and then bar a few minutes haven't even played him - it's not a good look for him or for us. 

[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.

You've posted a lot of silly things over the years but that bold bit is up there with the dumbest things I've ever read on here.

That's quite the honour!

[Dave]

As usual people are sticking to the two extremes, where why can't both things be true?  He's probably not good enough or doesn't fit Emery's system, but he's also been treated pretty badly.  "We" wanted him, signed him on loan and then bar a few minutes haven't even played him - it's not a good look for him or for us. 

I'm not sure that's a particularly accurate reflection of the last few pages. That seems to be the pretty overwhelming view as far as I can see.

[paul_e]

As usual people are sticking to the two extremes, where why can't both things be true?  He's probably not good enough or doesn't fit Emery's system, but he's also been treated pretty badly.  "We" wanted him, signed him on loan and then bar a few minutes haven't even played him - it's not a good look for him or for us. 

Of course it isn't but a player joining a new club, not playing much and leaving quietly a year later isn't unique. Yes the loan with an obligation bit changes it slightly but from the perspective of the player it's not particularly rare for a transfer to just not work out. In truth he's probably in a better situation of being able to go back either next month or in the summer and try again. If he were here permanently already and wasn't getting games he'd be in a far worse spot with us needing to avoid taking too much of a loss on his fee and probably just loaning him out a couple of times ourselves.

I think the whole thing is more a case of mistakes being made all round in the rush to try to get the deal over the line in the last few hours, this is a big part of why I hate us leaving things as late as we have for the last 2 windows.