Aston Villa are in the wrong about Harvey Elliott and could it have been avoided. Are Liverpool to blame too?

Harvey Elliott will soon know one way or another how his 2025/26 season will end. His deadline day transfer to Aston Villa on loan for Liverpool has been a disaster.

Elliott was the nearest thing Villa managed to an exciting signing in the summer transfer window. His obligation to buy, reported at a transfer fee of £35 million and supposedly triggered by his tenth appearance, made it look like a new signing in all but name. Lots of Villa supporters were enthused by it.

What followed was months of stagnation and the emergence of a highly unsatisfactory state of affairs. Elliott played 104 minutes for Villa before the call was made to cut him entirely from the matchday squad. It was clear early on that Villa didn’t want to meet the obligation to buy and it has now been confirmed.

Why Villa are in the wrong over Harvey Elliott

The implications for Elliot have been dire. At 22 years of age, the outgoing and triumphant England Under-21 captain has been stripped of playing time thanks to the decision he made to resolve that exact problem at Liverpool.

He will not play for Villa again. Liverpool presumably thought they’d effectively sold him; they’re not going to take him back at any cost to themselves. Having played briefly for Liverpool this season, Elliott is stuck and his options to free himself will be limited even if they come to fruition at all.

It appears that Elliott is a victim of Villa’s internal politics. I’m sure we’ll know more details when The Athletic gets the green light after a resolution is found, but we can all read into the fiasco and draw our own conclusions.

The only one that absolves Villa of blame is that the player was signed by manager Unai Emery, fully convinced that the offending clause would be triggered, and quickly fell short of expectations to such a degree that Emery changed his mind. It seems extremely unlikely.

Emery, we’re led to believe, has the final say on transfers. Yet it’s apparent at this stage that he was not convinced from the start and questions need to be asked about how it came to be that Elliott ended up at Villa Park regardless.

Elliott deserved better from 2025/26

Villa has to be Emery’s priority. We wouldn’t want it any other way – if he doesn’t think Elliott warrants a spot in the team, a place on the bench or a £35 million transfer fee, then that’s that.

But Villa must hold their hand up and accept culpability. If Elliott hadn’t been brought in on that basis, on terms agreed by all parties, they wouldn’t be stuck with an unwanted player who isn’t even their asset. It’s easy as supporters to end our scrutiny at ‘Oh well, Emery isn’t going to play Elliott so that’s the end of it,’ but that really isn’t the end of it.

Like it or not, football clubs do bear some responsibility for their players. The right thing for Villa to do was not sign him. Not playing him now is fine. It’s in the best interests of the club. But Villa, collectively, are at fault for letting it happen and it does matter.

Elliott’s parent club has had some criticism too. By bringing him on for the final minute against Newcastle United precisely one week before the transfer deadline, Arne Slot fundamentally restricted his January options. It wasn’t ideal and it put Elliott at unnecessary risk, but my sense is that Liverpool believed in good faith that they were effectively selling him.

It should have been a good move. I think Elliott is a fine footballer with a big future. I think he could have gone to the World Cup this summer with the right move a year earlier. I think – thought – Villa was the right move, for him and for them.

I’m gutted it’s worked out this way. Emery’s decision is rightly final on the matter but I don’t think it’s unfair to suggest this could all have been handled rather better.

The football authorities need to learn from Elliott’s case

Ultimately, there’s a young man at the centre of this who’s had a promising career avoidably interrupted at the worst possible juncture and he’s just about the only person who doesn’t shoulder a share of the blame.

The fact that Elliott is restricted in such a way should be cause for some reflection among football’s authorities, but it won’t.

It should influence a proper review of the loan market, how it works and how it’s regulated, but it won’t. It should lead to a reconsideration of limits on players’ movement, especially if they’re loaned around, but it won’t.

There’s every chance football has a precedent-setting court case in its future involving a player in something like Elliott’s position. I’d like to think Villa will reflect on that next time they’re making a decision about a player and there’s a chance it’s not final.

The post Aston Villa are in the wrong about Harvey Elliott and could it have been avoided. Are Liverpool to blame too? appeared first on AVillaFan.com – Aston Villa Fan Site.