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.

[eamonn]

Wonder what our threshold is with the £ numbers.

We pay him...£50k a week(?) til June 30th ie £1m over 5 months for a max of 2 more appearances.

Or we pay Liverpool £5m (?) plus the £1m in wages for up to about 20 appearances.

[dorsetvillian]

It's a terrible situation for Elliott. Villa should never have agreed to such a deal and Liverpool are shameful in not looking out for one of their own players. I can't believe a deal can't be agreed between the two clubs.

[Dave]

It's a terrible situation for Elliott. Villa should never have agreed to such a deal and Liverpool are shameful in not looking out for one of their own players. I can't believe a deal can't be agreed between the two clubs.

It was our deal. We wanted to buy him. Liverpool wanted to sell him to us.

The deal was structured so that we could buy him from them without upsetting UEFA, but ballsed it up.

Liverpool have done nothing wrong, apart from being a bit naive.

[Beard82]

Unfortunately neither club want him.  We’ll pay and play him but not buy him.  Liverpool wont play him and don’t want him playing for us unless we buy him. 

Unfortunately I think a big part is down to the FFP restrictions.  It’s more the opportunity cost of what we could get with the money rather than buying him per say

[Ozzjim]

Agreed. It was rubbish negotiating with zero contingency. As it is, I can't see him playing for us again if 2-3 players are fit next week.

[Skipper_The_Eyechild]

I wonder if Dean Smith will still come in for him for a few months in March or whatever it is? I don't know the logistics, though. Liverpool still probably wouldn't want to help us out to let that happen (as is their perogative).

[Bent Neilsens Screamer]

I wonder if Dean Smith will still come in for him for a few months in March or whatever it is? I don't know the logistics, though. Liverpool still probably wouldn't want to help us out to let that happen (as is their perogative).

It’d probably be to Liverpool’s advantage if he were to get some games and maintain his value. That’s if you can cancel a loan out of a transfer window, presume you can?

[ChicagoLion]

I wonder if Dean Smith will still come in for him for a few months in March or whatever it is? I don't know the logistics, though. Liverpool still probably wouldn't want to help us out to let that happen (as is their perogative).

It’d probably be to Liverpool’s advantage if he were to get some games and maintain his value. That’s if you can cancel a loan out of a transfer window, presume you can?

I do not think you can.

[Smithy]

It's a terrible situation for Elliott. Villa should never have agreed to such a deal and Liverpool are shameful in not looking out for one of their own players. I can't believe a deal can't be agreed between the two clubs.

It was our deal. We wanted to buy him. Liverpool wanted to sell him to us.

The deal was structured so that we could buy him from them without upsetting UEFA, but ballsed it up.

Liverpool have done nothing wrong, apart from being a bit naive.

I disagree. We're FAR from an innocent party here, but until the point he becomes OUR player, he's still THEIR player, and they are acting to the detriment of their player right now.  To say they've done nothing wrong is wildly inaccurate, in my opinion.

How many loans have been terminated this window because the players weren't playing enough?  Liverpool are making him stay here purely in the hope we get desperate and need to play him, triggering the £35m.  Unai has made it clear that's not happening.  And to be clear, both parties are well within their rights to take those positions, given that's what the agreement says.

But it's a failure on BOTH parties not to reach an agreement that prevents the player from losing an entire season of his career, for no reason other than the clubs can't find a way to let him play another dozen or so games.

Remember, we haven't reneged on a deal here - we've chosen not to complete the deal WITHIN the terms set out when he signed.  Not playing him for 10 games was ALWAYS an option available to us.  A shitty option, but an option nonetheless.  There was always the slim possibility that the permanent deal wouldn't go ahead.  He could have got a serious injury early in the season, for example.

Whatever happens, if Harvey isn't free to contribute for the second half of the season (either here, or at Liverpool), it'll be a pretty shameful chapter in our history, and Liverpool's.

[andyh]

Knowing how meticulous Unai is, it seems pretty obvious he had no say whatsoever in the signing of Elliott.
He would have known Elliot’s strengths and weaknesses before signing and therefore known he didn’t fit in with our system.

However, if he did sanction the move, it reflects pretty badly on him.

I suspect this is on Monchi and is his legacy, well, I hope that is the case.