30 Jan 2026 06:59:47
The Elliott situation seems very unfortunate, seems like they are intent on not letting him play the 10 games so they don't have to pay. Surely we renegotiate it out so he can get game time?
30 Jan 2026 07:17:49
If possible I would bring him back. It's a shame how his career is going, he is so talented and has a good attitude. It just seems to be his lack of speed and size that holds him back.
30 Jan 2026 07:30:20
Yeh not sure how him not playing benefits us. Thought it was a strange move at the time but would have liked to see it work out for Harvey.
Villa are crippled with injuries in midfield at the mo too with mcginn, tielemens and kamara all out.
30 Jan 2026 08:04:35
I think it's catch 22 isn't it.
Villa agreed to pay the fee if he met the appearances and they came in for him. It's not Liverpools fault that their manager doesn't want him and weren't to know.
They can easily change the terms but on the other hand why help a top 5 rival with a leg up and get them out of a 35 mill contract.
Unfortunately Elliot will be the one that gets hurt in all of this.
30 Jan 2026 08:24:36
He played yesterday and you could clearly see that the sharpness was lacking as he hasn't played at all but he did some lovely stuff on nd off the ball. No idea why Emery elected to treat him that way but like he said, "he's been professional" let's see how it pans out.
30 Jan 2026 08:25:53
Maybe their manager doesn't think he's good enough like Slot thinks certain Liverpool players aren't good enough.
30 Jan 2026 08:37:53
The player we should be discussing about is tyler morton who is killing it at Lyon. How did we let him go? And now we want adam wharton who is going to cost is 10 times more?
And jarell quansah wowzers we let him go and now need to sign at-least 4 new defenders.
Lesser said about diaz the better.
We could have just added wirtz frimpong and ekitike and sold Nunez and Elliott and it would have been an amazing window
The deeper we go into the season the more horrible the summer window gets. We really let players go that could have helped us so much this season all to get a striker that wasnt fit and now hasn't played 10 games for us! Bonkers and tells you how important Klopp was apart from the coaching. He really kept hughes and Edward's in check too.
Slot bears the blame rightfully so but he wasnt hepled at all by the two windows infact its one of the main reasons where we are today.
30 Jan 2026 08:44:59
But that was poor from Hughes in negotiating that loan deal, he should not have given them an out, it should have been an obligation to buy, not an option, but even if he did want to make it easier, by placing a 10 game clause he was forcing Villa's hand at the expense of Elliott who is the only loser in all of this.
30 Jan 2026 09:07:18
Exactly AR. We didn't do this minimum games nonsense before Hughes. It's an incentive NOT to play him.
30 Jan 2026 09:36:28
There are at least two sides to every negotiation, the two clubs in this case and the player and his agent. Everyone went into this deal with their eyes open, Harvey obviously thought he'd get game time, he was probably happy with a club of Villas profile and playing style, and it looked a reasonably good fit.
As is often the case when fringe players leave us they don't thrive unless they take quite a step down, like Morton is doing well in France, or Quansah in Germany. There's a reason why we let Harve go, and a reason why Emery doesn't play him.
Look at Trent in Madrid, we built around him, he thrived in our system, he and his reps thought RM was a great move, others looked at it and thought it wasn't a guarantee as they wouldn't put up with some of the deficiencies in his game. It's not working out well for him. Is that our fault as a club, I don't think so.
30 Jan 2026 09:49:39
Agree with JK, that it's not Hughes or Liverpools fault really, it was a good idea and one not too uncommon, however it's been clear for a while and they've even come out and specified that they won't trigger the games so yes I'd be getting him back amongst our squad if we could, Slot probably won't play him anyway but be better off having the opportunity rather than no chance of playing in the league.
Jackson at Bayern was a similar case where they came out straight after signing him saying there's no way he'll play the amount of games needed to trigger the clause. Strange one. I know with that there was a heavy up front charge though like 7mil if memory serves me correctly so maybe similar type arrangement.
Big shame as Harvey seems like one of the good guys in modern day football with the levels of greed around. And at his stage of his career he desperately needs games, should have been his mainstay season after such a good euros with the 21s. although villa was always a strange choice I thought.
30 Jan 2026 09:53:15
Elliott was considered not quite good enough/ expendable by the management and, I think, probably by most supporters. I think most were happy to take money for him.
Aston Villa are currently above us in the league, playing better than us and objectively are having a better season.
So if Elliott wasn't good enough for us, I guess it's logical that he is also not good enough for a team that are (currently) better than us.
30 Jan 2026 09:57:35
Or like Klopp with Elliott @Endo eh?
30 Jan 2026 10:19:17
Surely Elliot and his agent were also involved in the negotiations as well though.
Elliot's got the short straw here but he wasn't sent to Villa against his will.
Realistically Villa should be the ones cancelling his loan but then why would they want to send him back to assist a team that is in competition for a top 5 place.
30 Jan 2026 10:36:11
So Hughes is to blame for Elliott not getting game time at Villa too? I've heard it all now.
30 Jan 2026 11:14:37
Dont let common sense get in the way of a bit of Hughes bashing Sean.
30 Jan 2026 13:53:58
@Cafu.
Morton is doing well in the French league, that is hardly comparable to a guy who has shown he can perform well against the best premiership teams and is an international. Quansah was trying to do his best Virg impression and was a little to casual and inconsistent for me, he is probably in the right league where it's lower intensity and he gets a bit more time. I do think we should have held on to him, but it's possible he wanted to be a starter and LFC thought wrongly that they could sign someone better.
30 Jan 2026 20:33:18
Sean and Florian, he actually is. Either go for an obligation to buy or no buy option. If there was no buy option, they might give him a few more opportunities. But if they aren't sure of him, they aren't going to want to commit, are they? Especially when everyone knew they really wanted Paqueta.
Would you play a player to make the move permanent when you really want another one? It was a try before you buy move for Villa with zero risk. The risk was all on Liverpool and Elliott himself. A horrific negotiation by Hughes.
30 Jan 2026 22:40:16
@Babbity, what was the risk for Liverpool? If Elliott comes back at the end of the season he may well play a more prominent part in the new managers plans. Otherwise Villa stump up the extra cash.
Just looking for an excuse - any excuse - to blame the blame the club for something that you don't actually have context for and apologies in advance if you were actually part of the team negotiating the deal.
Again, I agree that the club isn't covering itself in glory so far this year and I respect that people have opinions which they are entitled to put forward, but there is often a fair bit of a gap between (sometimes even my own) opinion and fact and there has been a significant number of examples of the gap in recent times on this forum.
30 Jan 2026 23:18:25
Depreciation of the asset, WDW. His value will have tanked significantly and there is a year left on his contract.
I don't need to sit in on negotiations to know that we never did this minimum games nonsense before Hughes.
I'm not looking for any excuse to blame the club. I'm blaming Hughes because he deserves it.
30 Jan 2026 23:47:30
Sorry, I meant to say one less year on his contract.