Harvey Elliott (signed on loan)

[Goldenballs]

Why would Liverpool help us though, when they're trying to catch us? We've just lost 3 nailed on starting midfielders. We either use their player and they get £35m, or don't use him and have one fewer midfielders to choose from.

£10m to them now is nothing really.

[Beard82]

Thats a shame - but clearly they think that damaging Elliots career is better than finding a work around (which I get - were above them after all). 

They've spent .5bn this season.  So righting off a youth player isnt really going to be an issue - but there on pitch peformances have been.

[eamonn]

Apparently renegotiation talks have failed and he stays on current terms and in current limbo.

What's the source for that? Huge shame if true...

Could have sworn I saw it on BBC Live Text an hour or so ago but can't find it now.

[Smithy]

Well, two hours ago Tanswell and Evans (via The Athletic) are saying, this is a quote from their Tweet:

"Harvey Elliott is expected to stay at Aston Villa after failing to find an agreement on a return to Liverpool.

Club sources say there had been no recent discussions on the removal of the 10-game obligation that exists in the deal for Elliott, which indicates that Villa need to pay a permanent fee between £30-35m to sign the 22-year-old permanently.

If Villa wished to end the agreement they would have to pay to a termination fee, while Liverpool did not want to recall Elliott."

----

The fact that there is even an option to terminate, for a fee, is news to me, and it must be pretty astronomical for the club to have not even considered it during the window?  I'm guessing a bit like the one Chelsea paid to Man Utd 'not' to sign Sancho last summer?

[Ian.]

I hope not, as if true the fella is only going to be available for a couple more games. What a ridiculous situation we’ve got in with this loan.