Harvey Elliott (signed on loan)

[eamonn]

More Emery quotes in the full article:

Aston Villa manager Unai Emery has appealed to Liverpool to change the terms of Harvey Elliott’s loan after admitting the current situation is “damaging” the 22-year-old.

Last month, Emery acknowledged there was a reluctance for Elliott to play more games, with the Liverpool loanee needing to play 10 matches in order for Villa to trigger the obligation to buy him.

Villa sources, speaking on the condition of anonymity, insisted the fee was closer to £30million ($41.3m), while Liverpool said it was £35m ($48.2m). Elliott has played five times this season, but had not featured in a matchday squad, prior to Villa’s trip to Newcastle on Sunday, since November.

The Athletic reported on deadline day that the former England Under-21 international would be staying at Villa, despite no progress being made on changing the terms of the existing agreement. If Villa wished to end the loan, they would have to pay a termination fee, while Liverpool did not want to recall Elliott during the transfer window. Both teams can agree to a change in loan terms outside of the window.
Emery acknowledged that the current situation on Friday — with Elliott only able to play three more games before Villa’s obligation is triggered — “is not fair” on the midfielder.

“I spoke with him,” said Emery ahead of Villa’s trip to Bournemouth. “We have been fair because there are two ways. One way is a sport, the second is business. We’ll be fair in case, because we are trying it. I spoke a few times with Harvey.
“Harvey, now I am opening the door to play with us, because he can help us. But it’s not only on my side. The other side is Liverpool. If they are taking off the clauses, they have to play matches and to buy him compulsory. (I said to him) ‘You are going to play here with us, it’s a sport decision.’

“But now it’s a sport decision and a business decision. My sport decision is still there — ‘you are deserving to play, we need your qualities in the field, you are going to play’. But in this case, the clauses are still there and now it is Liverpool, they have the key. And I told him it will be fair for him for Liverpool to take off this clause.”

Emery opened up on Villa’s efforts to change the terms and remove the 10-game threshold, which he said had been discussed more than three months ago. There remains no breakthrough in talks, however, with Liverpool and Villa battling it out for a Champions League spot.

“We are speaking about it (taking off the clause) but not now,” the Spaniard added. “We started speaking about it three months ago. The transfer window finished on Monday. It will be fair for him, because he’s a calm guy, a good guy, and he’s a fantastic professional. And his qualities are there.

“Of course, he must play, and he’s really being passionate. And I know we are damaging him, because we got a deal with Liverpool in the summer and the deal is there, and we are taking the decision responsibly from my side.”

Since returning to the matchday squad away to Newcastle United a fortnight ago after being absent for three months, Elliott has featured in the previous two matches. This has been partly influenced by Villa’s depleted midfield options, with Boubacar Kamara, Youri Tielemans and John McGinn all unavailable.

Villa sit third in the Premier League, six points ahead of fifth-placed Chelsea.

[Monty]

Sounds to me like he's managing it as well as he could be expected to. You feel for Elliott.

[Dave]

What’s done is done but it surely makes sense for Liverpool more than us to have the clause removed. He gets playing time and the player retains or even improves his value.

I’m surprised so many Villa fans think this. What if he helps us beat Liverpool to the CL spots?

Doesn’t anyone remember Mick Ferguson?

If they are worried about him making that sort of impact, they should consider paying us a fee to cancel and getting him back in that squad that has many injuries.

I think this screams slot to be honest. Villa in the window were probably happy to send him back, rumours are he wanted to go back, Liverpool as a club would probably do right by him and take him back, I just think slot has made his mind up on him. Liverpool have injuries as well, they had to play their best player at RB the other day, so there's clearly a place for him if only on the bench. He was a kloop boy wasn't he and slot does strike me a bit of a "it's my way" type of guy

But...that's still fine, isn't it? If Slot doesn't particularly want to use him or play him then you move him on to a new club. No different to us selling Cameron Archer.

They thought they'd sold him last summer. They helped out both us and the player last August by structuring the sale in such a way that recognised our financial limitations and six months later there is no suggestion that Liverpool do want him back. Their preference would be that we play him in two more games and complete the deal that they thought they'd agreed to in August.

That we've now had second thoughts and don't want to do that with a player that they don't want is really not their problem. They'll sell him in the summer to someone and think twice next time we ask them to help us out with something.

And Elliott will undoubtledy be extra fired up every time he comes up against us in the future.

[N'ZMAV]

I wonder if something snkeay has been done with this so called unhelpful clause....

for us to register him for the remainder of the Europa League whilst having to remove Barkley suggests that he could comfortably make the appearances rumoured for us to trigger the £35mil deal (or perhaps the deal is now a lot lower than £35mil)

[Dave]

I wonder if something snkeay has been done with this so called unhelpful clause....

for us to register him for the remainder of the Europa League whilst having to remove Barkley suggests that he could comfortably make the appearances rumoured for us to trigger the £35mil deal (or perhaps the deal is now a lot lower than £35mil)

Barkley wasn't in the original squad and Elliott was, so we can't add him. Unless we chose not to add Bailey, DL or Tammy.

[Hopadop]

What’s done is done but it surely makes sense for Liverpool more than us to have the clause removed. He gets playing time and the player retains or even improves his value.

I’m surprised so many Villa fans think this. What if he helps us beat Liverpool to the CL spots?

Doesn’t anyone remember Mick Ferguson?

If they are worried about him making that sort of impact, they should consider paying us a fee to cancel and getting him back in that squad that has many injuries.

I think this screams slot to be honest. Villa in the window were probably happy to send him back, rumours are he wanted to go back, Liverpool as a club would probably do right by him and take him back, I just think slot has made his mind up on him. Liverpool have injuries as well, they had to play their best player at RB the other day, so there's clearly a place for him if only on the bench. He was a kloop boy wasn't he and slot does strike me a bit of a "it's my way" type of guy

But...that's still fine, isn't it? If Slot doesn't particularly want to use him or play him then you move him on to a new club. No different to us selling Cameron Archer.

They thought they'd sold him last summer. They helped out both us and the player last August by structuring the sale in such a way that recognised our financial limitations and six months later there is no suggestion that Liverpool do want him back. Their preference would be that we play him in two more games and complete the deal that they thought they'd agreed to in August.

That we've now had second thoughts and don't want to do that with a player that they don't want is really not their problem. They'll sell him in the summer to someone and think twice next time we ask them to help us out with something.

And Elliott will undoubtledy be extra fired up every time he comes up against us in the future.

So...are we the baddies?

[Dave]

To the extent that there is blame that needs to be handed out, yes. Ultimately though, all we're doing is what we think is currently in the best interests of our club, like any other club would do.

But this one-eyed version of events where Liverpool are somehow "not looking after the interests of their player" and should behave differently, is definitely bollocks.

[PeterWithesShin]

Villa: We want to sign Elliott but we can't this summer due to financial rules, any suggestions to help us?

Liverpool: As he wants to join you and you want to sign him how about we structure it as a loan with 10 apps triggering an obligation to buy?

Villa: That's great, thanks.

Months later

Villa: Us again, we don't want to sign him now so haven't played him for months but we've got a load of injuries so needs must. Can you change things to help us?

Liverpool: Fuck off.

[Mister E]

The solution is clear: at what price does Emery think he's worth adding to the squad? - let's say £25m (roughly, the Guessand cost). Hmmm, that's about what Liverpool will get for him in the summer; so, recut the deal with Villa to make it an option to buy at £25m.
Simples.

[PaulWinch again]

Villa: We want to sign Elliott but we can't this summer due to financial rules, any suggestions to help us?

Liverpool: As he wants to join you and you want to sign him how about we structure it as a loan with 10 apps triggering an obligation to buy?

Villa: That's great, thanks.

Months later

Villa: Us again, we don't want to sign him now so haven't played him for months but we've got a load of injuries so needs must. Can you change things to help us?

Liverpool: Fuck off.

Indeed.

[cdward]

I thought the loan period would take us up to January, a new financial period and then we could afford to pay the £35M.
It sounds like Emery still wants the player.
We have definitely made a mess of this deal.
Hope we can sign him, he seems like a decent character, but I wouldn’t blame him if he tells to do one.

[eamonn]

The solution is clear: at what price does Emery think he's worth adding to the squad? - let's say £25m (roughly, the Guessand cost). Hmmm, that's about what Liverpool will get for him in the summer; so, recut the deal with Villa to make it an option to buy at £25m.
Simples.

One of the other weird things in this whole debacle is that the clubs can't agree on what the actual agreed transfer fee was - the Athletic have reported on numerous occasions that Liverpool say it was £35m and Villa say it was £30m.

If only there was a contract that laid out all the terms. We're clearly having issues with both reading/understanding it and sticking to it.

[Rich 147]

Yet you just know that if crystal palace were to not play Guessand until villa removed the obligation to buy, a fair few villa fans would be calling for them to do it so he can put himself in the shop window.

[SaddVillan]

Liverpool are in a bit of a predicament.

They'd previously assumed that they could book £30/35m in their accounts having 'sold' Elliott at the peak of his value.

We've said no. So that's not going to happen.

So, do they stick to the agreement, ir agreement a change?

Scenario One:
We don't play him and in the summer he goes back to Liverpool who then have to decide if they want him back - to reintegrate into their squad (with him knowing that Slot wanted him gone), or try and sell him again when his value will have gone down.

Scenario Two:
Liverpool and Villa reach an agreement (we'll probably have to pay a fee) whereby the 10 game purchase obligation is removed. He gets to play for us, stays in the shop window and (hopefully) does well - preserving his value, so that when he goes back to Liverpool there's a queue of prospective buyers prepared to pay £25-30m for him.

They're well within their rights NOT to change the deal, but that would be cutting off their nose to spite their face.

In modern day Premier League football money usually talks ...

[Ian.]

It’s a strange one as the general consensus here seems we’re the bad guys, but I’ve see lots of chatter online from Liverpool fans saying they are the baddies in this.