Harvey Elliott (signed on loan)

[PeterWithe]

We're in a different world now, 25+ doesn't necessarily give you guaranteed starters anymore, that's not to say that wasn't the plan with him. I still have no issue with the value.

No nor me. I see him as no better or worse than Buendia, so he isn’t needed, but I don’t see why he’s worth less.

[brontebilly]

We're in a different world now, 25+ doesn't necessarily give you guaranteed starters anymore, that's not to say that wasn't the plan with him. I still have no issue with the value.

No not me. I see him as no better or worse than Buendia, so he isn’t needed, but I don’t see why he’s worth less.

He's seven years younger than Buendia so there is that. Plenty of scope to improve. Emery seems to have dug himself into a hole of his own making here. But still turned to him to save the game v Brentford. Like any transfer if it doesn't work we could move him on after giving him a fair go, see Guessand, and I don't think we lose out too much on the deal.

[Mister E]

If Unai doesn’t rate him and doesn’t want him he will be off at the end of the loan period.

He didn't seem to rate Buendia ... life loves a redemption song.

Get the fee right and Elliott could become a very useful player for us (and England).

[Sexual Ealing]

(It's nobody at Aston Villa's job to give a single fuck about the England team.)

[PeterWithe]

Maybe, but over the years, plenty of players have left and amongst the reasons they have given is that there is more chance of international recognition at other clubs. Although it was always more likely they left for more money.

[Mister E]

(It's nobody at Aston Villa's job to give a single fuck about the England team.)

Hence the use of parentheses.

[TheToffnar]

Even when we signed him I thought 35m was pretty extortionate. I'm not going to say either way whether that valuation was fair based on his time here because he's barely had a run in the team. If not for the clause, he'd have at least been given a similar amount of leeway to prove himself as Guessand had.

Whole things a mess. Either way, we may well have our hand forced if Buendia get's injured.

[Dante Lavelli]

I've not seen anything to suggest he looks a £35m player, definitely not in a Villa shirt.

[ChicagoLion]

Even when we signed him I thought 35m was pretty extortionate. I'm not going to say either way whether that valuation was fair based on his time here because he's barely had a run in the team. If not for the clause, he'd have at least been given a similar amount of leeway to prove himself as Guessand had.

Whole things a mess. Either way, we may well have our hand forced if Buendia get's injured.

On the basis that we are running pretty tight to PSR , i doubt that we have the capacity to trigger the transfer cost this side of 30 June 26.

[algy]

He's been screwed over by an insane clause in his contract.  If it was a straight obligation to buy, he'd be getting games.  If the number of games was vaguely reasonable (30 league appearances, something like that) then he'd be getting games.

That we don't have to buy him, and there's a really low threshold to the point when we do, means that he either needed to hit the ground running straight away (which feels unlikely given most of our signings take a few months to settle in) or be frozen out.  No room for error, it was either all or nothing.

I feel for the guy, the whole thing is a mess, it's none of his doing but he is going to have to deal with the consequences anyway.

All this said - whilst I have a great deal of sympathy with the guy, we're not a charity for top-5-squad-player footballers.  He's just going to have to wait out this season and hope another club comes in for him over the summer.

[astonvilla82]

Remember that Liverpool are a family club with class and would never treat any of its players like this

[cdbearsfan]

I think they are, at most, 10% to blame.

[Dave]

I think they are, at most, 10% to blame.

Their only mistake is in naively believing that they'd structured the deal in such a way that meant we would definitely end up buying him.

Rather than just telling us that our accounting issues were our problem, and selling him to Leipzig or somebody.

[Drummond]

We signed him, we agreed to the terms. That we then don't like it it is completely on us.

[TheToffnar]

We signed him, we agreed to the terms. That we then don't like it it is completely on us.

Can't help but agree. Can make all the excuses we like with regards Monchis supposed failings in how the deal was structured or how Emery never wanted him in the first place, but they're essentially ways of dressing up a really shitty deal.

We agreed to the 10 game activation which undoubtedly was put in to appease both parties. Liverpool all but guarantee the sale of an unwanted asset and we get to push him over to next years books.

Liverpool not wanting to write out the clause is fair enough. Why set the precedent? Why strengthen a rival who they're relying on to drop points?