What was unreliable towards us and why put Newcastle and Villa in the same bracket?
Because we had a bit of a dramatic summer, due to different reasons? Nobody forced us to sign on the dotted line in both deals. Who stopped us from walking away?
I don’t see what was problematic from Newcastle towards us, it seemed to me that the issue was more between them and Isak.
The player talked about a promise (which you can hang on a cat’s tail in this industry) and Newcastle did the best they could to find a replacement and sell him when they agreed to. Each party tries to do the best for themselves.
In the other deal, it’s more Elliott who has perhaps a thing or two to ask Villa. We agreed to probably the nearest thing to a sale and what followed next is between them two parties.
And they’re not our negotiating partners, we are competitors.
Bloody hell, who would do business with each other in football if all this mattered.
Aston Villa FC boss Unai Emery has called on Liverpool FC to remove the £35m obligation to buy clause in Harvey Elliott’s loan deal.
“We’ll be fair in case, because we are trying it, and I told him, we are opening the door to play with us, because he can help us. But it’s not only in my way and on my side. The other side is Liverpool. If they take off the clauses to play matches and for us to buy him, (I said to him) 'you are going to play here with us, it’s a sport decision.’
"I know we are damaging him, because we got a deal with Liverpool in the summer and the deal is there, and we are respecting the decision and taking the sporting decision responsibly from my side. It can change for him, in case Liverpool take off this clause. If they don’t want to, okay, but the player is getting damaged.”
Ridiculous of Emery to be pointing the finger at anyone outside his own club
This is about a young player, who it seems was badly advised, no prize for guessing why!
Unfortunately the one who wears it is Elliott,Villa is probably doing what any club would, no doubt surely they knew why was available,which just might have had to do with playing time…ergo the kid suffers, my thoughts lie with him, not Villa at all.
To give an example of a loan to buy with conditions, but more difficult clauses.
Bournemouth signed a goalkeeper in January, Christos Mandas, on loan from Lazio. But to make it permanent, he will have to play a certain number of games and Bournemouth to qualify for Europe.
Pretty weird one for two obvious reasons, first of all they already have a starting goalkeeper in Petrovic, who has played in all of their 27 games in all competitions so far this season. And second, it’s difficult to see how they will qualify for Europe.
Even that one is pretty weird, so not the best example of a ‘normal’ loan with obligation to buy with conditions. But what’s Elliott’s clause of 10 games compared to this for example.
Why should we help them they are in competition with us for the Champions league places.
If we remove the clause they have on extra body to use, which could help them beat us to a Champions league place and they could still refuse to pay us $35m.
But it wasn’t. It also gave Villa a free option to not buy Elliot and with their appalling public carryon has left us looking like bad guys re Elliot. We should never do such deals; Harvey should have been told that he goes to Germany etc or stays unless we get a proper sale not a conditional offer.
Yeah but it’s stupid of us to allow Villa this. Their financial incompetence is their problem and they shouldn’t have been allowed to have Harvey on the terms they proposed. I hope the club make it very clear to all current and future players that you will only leave on our terms which include watertight sales not BS put options without appropriate compensation.
Could never accept a commercial lawyer saying that. “Oh this contract with clauses that allow the other side to walk away ‘normally’ doesn’t happen”, so I don’t worry about it. FFS. Dreadful deal and we and Elliot have paid the consequence. If I was FSG I’d want a full review of who thought this was our best option and a clear undertaking that we don’t agree similar deals without a large (calculated) offset payment. Eg. 10m upfront for Elliot or as part of ‘loan’; balance of 25m after 10 games or if not met by date X (6 months?) then a further 5m is paid to us with option for us only to cancel deal; then if we dont cancel deal if 10 games not reached by date Y (just before seasons end?) another 5m accrue and we have another option to cancel deal.
That doesn’t make sense. Isak wasn’t his replacement and we should have been clear with Harvey that any deal on terms like Villas would never fly. If he wanted to leave (understandable) he needed to be open to moves to clubs who actually could but him
The problem is it’s more likely we would be interested in their players (like a Rogers for example) than the opposite, same goes for Palace and all these feeder clubs for the big clubs. But yeah, if it was just a way to defer payments then the clause should have been 1 game, and even that would have been generous. Pay up or fuck off from now on.
“We’ll be fair in case, because we are trying it, and I told him, we are opening the door to play with us, because he can help us. But it’s not only in my way and on my side. The other side is Liverpool. If they take off the clauses to play matches and for us to buy him, (I said to him) 'you are going to play here with us, it’s a sport decision.’
