Ermm… The clause was already there when they agreed to the transfer
Utstein on
Is it really such a problem? The player will return to his club after the loan.
NoMap749 on
TLDR: Villa will be forced to activate the buy option and pay 35 million pounds if Elliot reaches 10 appearances this season. He’s currently sitting on 7, and the ownership is likely telling Emery that he is to avoid playing him at all costs to avoid that fee.
I don’t even understand what the point of this loan is. If I had to guess, this is probably Villa’s attempt at strongarming Liverpool into voiding that part of the agreement, otherwise their young player they’re looking to develop will only see the bench for the rest of the year. It basically a football hostage situation at the moment.
malkebulan on
How are Liverpool ‘damaging’ the player? Emery’s talking out of his arse, like the clause magically appeared after the agreement was signed. I can’t stand Liverpool, but this one’s all on Villa. They’ve wasted a good player’s season. Classy
Rude_Procedure_4190 on
Is it more cost efficient to sit him and possibly miss out on top four… or play him secure top 4 and pay the clause …
MoisesCanelo on
I dont get why clubs agree to these obligation to buy if loan clauses, or just possibility to buy when it almost always ends up with the loaning club trying to scam the other by not paying or not fulfilling the clauses. Eg rashford or elliot
Entire_One4033 on
Never really seen the point in these clauses, I mean when it comes down to it surely all parties would rather he was playing footy instead of warming his arse on the bench?
Liverpool would prefer he gets valuable PL minutes and either comes back a better player for the experience and maybe worth a bit more money or possibly even forces his way into Slotts squad for next season?
Villa would prefer to play him as and when they see fit, as they would with any other squad player?
And the player himself just simply wants to play football surely?
It’s not doing any party any good, just rip the clause up and move on, for everyone’s sake
Obvious_Wizard on
Villa: We’re very keen on Elliott on a loan to buy.
Liverpool: Cool, 10 appearances and £35million?
Villa: Where do we sign?!
Also Villa: 😠
I mean, just because they activate the clause doesn’t mean Elliott’s gonna agree to personal terms after being treated worse than shit by Villa.
MaTr82 on
After this, in the interest of protecting young players I would ban loans with performance related obligation to buy clauses.
GRChoke on
Both clubs are to blame.
masteroffdesaster on
WTF is this bullshit?
No-Union6229 on
They agreed terms with liverpool but now making them guilty for the agreement no one forced them accept that
lawdjesustheresafire on
Bruh can’t be serious. I feel so sorry for Harvey. Had a potential World Cup year ruined by both clubs
FindingAether on
Aston Villa accepted the clauses but has buye4 remorse… They could have bite the bullet and taken the financial hit but why should they? From they POV Harvey Ellitlot is not a Villa player. His development is not their concern.
Liverpool could have tried to cancel the clause do Elliott can play… or cancel the loan so at least ge cab have minutes with Liverpool… but they decided to do neither. It would also seem Harvey Eliiot is no longer a Liverpool player as far as FSG is concerned.
Neither club care about the player. Its a shit position to be in. This is why I never criticse players for not being loyal to clubs since they will happily throw players under the bus for money.
14 Comments
Ermm… The clause was already there when they agreed to the transfer
Is it really such a problem? The player will return to his club after the loan.
TLDR: Villa will be forced to activate the buy option and pay 35 million pounds if Elliot reaches 10 appearances this season. He’s currently sitting on 7, and the ownership is likely telling Emery that he is to avoid playing him at all costs to avoid that fee.
I don’t even understand what the point of this loan is. If I had to guess, this is probably Villa’s attempt at strongarming Liverpool into voiding that part of the agreement, otherwise their young player they’re looking to develop will only see the bench for the rest of the year. It basically a football hostage situation at the moment.
How are Liverpool ‘damaging’ the player? Emery’s talking out of his arse, like the clause magically appeared after the agreement was signed. I can’t stand Liverpool, but this one’s all on Villa. They’ve wasted a good player’s season. Classy
Is it more cost efficient to sit him and possibly miss out on top four… or play him secure top 4 and pay the clause …
I dont get why clubs agree to these obligation to buy if loan clauses, or just possibility to buy when it almost always ends up with the loaning club trying to scam the other by not paying or not fulfilling the clauses. Eg rashford or elliot
Never really seen the point in these clauses, I mean when it comes down to it surely all parties would rather he was playing footy instead of warming his arse on the bench?
Liverpool would prefer he gets valuable PL minutes and either comes back a better player for the experience and maybe worth a bit more money or possibly even forces his way into Slotts squad for next season?
Villa would prefer to play him as and when they see fit, as they would with any other squad player?
And the player himself just simply wants to play football surely?
It’s not doing any party any good, just rip the clause up and move on, for everyone’s sake
Villa: We’re very keen on Elliott on a loan to buy.
Liverpool: Cool, 10 appearances and £35million?
Villa: Where do we sign?!
Also Villa: 😠
I mean, just because they activate the clause doesn’t mean Elliott’s gonna agree to personal terms after being treated worse than shit by Villa.
After this, in the interest of protecting young players I would ban loans with performance related obligation to buy clauses.
Both clubs are to blame.
WTF is this bullshit?
They agreed terms with liverpool but now making them guilty for the agreement no one forced them accept that
Bruh can’t be serious. I feel so sorry for Harvey. Had a potential World Cup year ruined by both clubs
Aston Villa accepted the clauses but has buye4 remorse… They could have bite the bullet and taken the financial hit but why should they? From they POV Harvey Ellitlot is not a Villa player. His development is not their concern.
Liverpool could have tried to cancel the clause do Elliott can play… or cancel the loan so at least ge cab have minutes with Liverpool… but they decided to do neither. It would also seem Harvey Eliiot is no longer a Liverpool player as far as FSG is concerned.
Neither club care about the player. Its a shit position to be in. This is why I never criticse players for not being loyal to clubs since they will happily throw players under the bus for money.