Harvey Elliott (signed on loan)

[eamonn]

Its funny - Unai seems to have very exact requirements of what he wants - and quite quickly decides against them. 

Im assuming that why Monchi went - maybe he wasnt happy with the targets he got from the shortlists they drew up.

He wanted Asensio back instead I suspect.

And Paqueta, bizarrely.

[PeterWithe]

With how much we’ve wasted on guessand and elliot we surely could have afforded Asensio?

The talk on here was that we did want him and had told him that, but that we would have to sell before we could do the deal for him so if he got another offer, as it happened from Fenerbache, to not wait for an offer from us that might not be coming.

[brontebilly]

Its funny - Unai seems to have very exact requirements of what he wants - and quite quickly decides against them. 

Im assuming that why Monchi went - maybe he wasnt happy with the targets he got from the shortlists they drew up.

He wanted Asensio back instead I suspect.

And Paqueta, bizarrely.

Shoving Rogers out wide to accommodate one of those show ponies. I'm backing Monchi on Elliot being a better bet for the club than those two.

Elliot has been unfortunate as Sancho and Guessand were given every chance and wasted pretty much all of them.

[Percy McCarthy]

With how much we’ve wasted on guessand and elliot we surely could have afforded Asensio?

From what I vaguely remember hearing about Asensio, he wanted to come back, and we wanted him, but we kept him waiting to see if we could afford him. He didn’t want to wait until the last day in case it fell through and he was left in limbo at PSG. So with a few days left he got fed up and signed for Fenerbache.

Point taken on Guessand, but Elliott has only cost us wages. So maybe Asensio’s wages, not the fee, caused an accounting problem against SCR, whereas Guessand’s didn’t.

[Percy McCarthy]

With how much we’ve wasted on guessand and elliot we surely could have afforded Asensio?

The talk on here was that we did want him and had told him that, but that we would have to sell before we could do the deal for him so if he got another offer, as it happened from Fenerbache, to not wait for an offer from us that might not be coming.

Ah, I now see PW beat me to it.

[aldridgeboy]

Although the muted discussion about renegotiating the 10 game clause led nowhere, does that mean it cant be revisited?

I just wonder come march, and he just isn't getting any game time, and his value plummets, would Liverpool rethink? Would that be allowed ? ( Notwithstanding I get the argument why should they help us as a competitor)

[tony scott]

   If we start to play him on regular basis, do we think he would be motivated to stay if we offered him a deal ?

[Skipper_The_Eyechild]

Although the muted discussion about renegotiating the 10 game clause led nowhere, does that mean it cant be revisited?

I just wonder come march, and he just isn't getting any game time, and his value plummets, would Liverpool rethink? Would that be allowed ? ( Notwithstanding I get the argument why should they help us as a competitor)

'For the time being, unless both clubs agree to any future changes to the agreement, Elliott seems to have run out of options.'

That line from the article suggests it is still viable, although I'd still say pretty unlikely.

[N'ZMAV]

£35mil is a lot of money - if it was £15mil then it may have been a different sort of season for the lad

[ChicagoLion]

Liverpool and Villa can change the games played trigger of the loan agreement.

[Mister E]

Shoving Rogers out wide to accommodate one of those show ponies. I'm backing Monchi on Elliot being a better bet for the club than those two.
Elliot has been unfortunate as Sancho and Guessand were given every chance and wasted pretty much all of them.

Correct.

£35mil is a lot of money - if it was £15mil then it may have been a different sort of season for the lad

Your point would be valid if we hadn't spunked £25-30m on The Lump, and paid £220k pw on the largely-ineffectual Sancho.
Last summer, Elliott's stock was high and many people saw him as an emerging international talent. We've somewhat rubbed the gloss off that; to say the least.

[ROBBO]

We are relying on Rogers far too much, it's a case for oppositions to stop Rogers and stop us, and having him moved wide left made him easy to mark, we needed him in the centre as he looked like the only player likely to score for us. Do not mind Emery being demanding that players play to his instructions, likely he made his mind up abot Elliot early on in training, how this did not apply to Guessand early is puzzling.

[Percy McCarthy]

Liverpool and Villa can change the games played trigger of the loan agreement.

Not sure Liverpool will want to help us have a player who could perhaps help us keep them out of the CL spots.

[Dante Lavelli]

We are relying on Rogers far too much, it's a case for oppositions to stop Rogers and stop us, and having him moved wide left made him easy to mark, we needed him in the centre as he looked like the only player likely to score for us. Do not mind Emery being demanding that players play to his instructions, likely he made his mind up abot Elliot early on in training, how this did not apply to Guessand early is puzzling.

Against Brentford, I thought moving Rogers to the left helped because he couldn't get on the ball in the centre.  It didn't work obviously, but I could understand the logic.

[Smithy]

Liverpool and Villa can change the games played trigger of the loan agreement.

Do we have a definitive source for this? I'd like to believe it's true - and if true, it would explain why there was no urgency around it in January - but it does feel like any "change" to a loan agreement would have to be done in a transfer window?