Hey Emery, don't BLAME Liverpool for botched Harvey Elliott loan deal

Aston Villa manager Unai Emery is attempting to shift the blame to Liverpool for the current failure around Harvey Elliott’s loan deal.

Elliott, 22, moved to Villa Park on deadline day for a one-season loan move with a view to a £35m permanent transfer. That would represent very good money for Liverpool on Elliott considering that by next summer he will only have one year left on his contract.

Villa were in disarray when the loan deal went through. PSR had caused havoc for their summer transfer business - and they didn’t actually win a Premier League game until September 28.

Their financial and transfer market dire straits were exemplified by the exit of president of football operations Monchi. By that stage it was clear that Villa - and Emery - were far from happy with their summer business.

And unfortunately for Elliott he was caught in the crossfire.

Elliott has been left in limbo by Villa

The Spanish manager decided very early on that Elliott was NOT a worth signing at £35m. In the loan deal was a clause which stated that he would automatically become a permanent Villa signing for that price once he hit 10 matches.

But Emery decided to freeze the playmaker out - using others such as Morgan Rogers and Emi Buendia instead. It was clear that the Villans would do anything to prevent the deal from going through - stranding Elliott on five matches for a large chunk of the season.

That was a dismal situation for the midfielder - who maintained his level in training and bided his time for a chance. And in fairness that chance DID come in the new year when Villa experienced an injury crisis in midfield.

He has since made two more appearances - taking him towards the 10-game threshold - but Emery has attempted to change the rules of the game.

Do Liverpool remove £35m Elliott clause?

Right now he has a use for Elliott in his squad - but knows that if he reaches 10 games his cash-strapped club will be forced to complete the permanent move he is desperate to avoid.

He wants his cake and to eat it too.

Emery used his pre-match press conference on Friday to turn the guns on Liverpool - pleading with Richard Hughes to change the terms of the deal.

He stated that the loan to purchase deal was “damaging” Elliott and that the only fair thing to do would be for Liverpool to remove the clause.

Now in fairness there are arguments to be made for removing it. It would give Elliott the chance to play without the pressure of an impending £35m transfer.

It would ensure he gets plenty of football - meaning Liverpool might be better able to find a willing buyer in summer if his form recovers.

© IMAGO

This is Aston Villa's fault - not Liverpool's

But on the other hand - this is NOT Liverpool’s fault. It was Villa who agreed to the deal in black and white. By trying to back out of it they are putting the onus on Liverpool when that should not be the case.

If they want to have Harvey Elliott then they know that using him comes with certain obligations - that means paying the cash next summer.

Right now the player is back in favour but it won’t be long until the pendulum swings the other way again.

We are led to believe that Liverpool have budgeted for next season including Elliott’s £35m fee and minus his salary on the wage bill. For all intents and purposes Elliott has been “sold”.

That is why the club may have been reluctant to bring him back in the winter window - and in any case Villa were not prepared to pay a termination fee.

Sadly for Elliott it looks like he will be playing a couple of more times for Villa and then discarded until the summer. By then Liverpool will have to ask for less money in any transfer deal with a suitor - and that is not something they’d planned for.

But it must be borne in mind that it is Villa - and not the Premier League champions - who are seeking to move the goalposts here. If Elliott is going to end up “damaged” by this botch then Emery needs to consider that it is his own club responsible.