Aston Villa legend questions Liverpool over Harvey Elliott decision with Unai Emery claim

Former Aston Villa striker Gabby Agbonlahor has questioned Liverpool about leaving Harvey Elliott in the Midlands this season, making a claim about manager Unai Emery

Harvey Elliott is on loan at Aston Villa.(Image: Matteo Ciambelli/DeFodi via Getty Images)

Harvey Elliott has made just nine appearances for Aston Villa this season, and his move from Liverpool has far from gone to plan. Months ago, Unai Emery made it clear that he didn't want to sign the now-23-year-old permanently.

The expectation, when Elliott made the move, was that it was a good step for his career. Few thought that he wouldn't be a good fit at Villa Park and that it wouldn't become his long-term home.

It quickly became clear that the move wouldn't pan out as planned, though, and another big decision on what to do looms for Elliott, who is likely to be on the move again when the summer comes.

"It is such a shame," Gabby Agbonlahor said on talkSPORT. "He probably thought Aston Villa would be the perfect place and he might even get on the plane for the World Cup.

"Liverpool hasn’t helped because the deal could have been changed in January. He could have played in as many games and got rid of the fee, but Liverpool didn’t want to change that.

"You can’t blame Unai Emery. Money is tight, and you can’t just spend what you like. He doesn’t want to spend a big chunk of his budget for the summer."

It would have been possible for Liverpool to change the terms of the deal mid-season to remove the buy clause that was inserted, with Emery claiming that talks were held about doing so.

Harvey Elliott during his loan spell at Aston Villa(Image: Justin Setterfield/Getty Images)

Essentially, the Spaniard said that under the current terms of the deal, after a certain number of appearances, Aston Villa would have to spend $47 million (£35 million), and it was unprepared to do so.

But, amid the race for the Champions League places, former Liverpool and Aston Villa CEO Christian Purslow suggested that the Reds wouldn't want to change the terms and allow Elliott to play as often as Emery chose without him moving permanently.

In that scenario, the on-loan man could help stop Liverpool from finishing inside the top five spots, only then to return to Anfield.

"Liverpool weren’t playing ball," Purslow said on talkSPORT. "And they weren’t playing ball because of what has been hanging over the last few weeks, which is the top five outcome.

"The stakes on Champions League qualification are so high; probably £90 million to £100 million (c. $120 million to $133 million) of revenue next year in or out.

"Frankly, the £5 million to £10 million (c. $6.7 million to $13.4 million) you might lose if Harvey Elliott doesn’t kick a ball and bounces back in the summer is peanuts if Liverpool are fifth or Villa fifth. That’s why Liverpool aren’t playing ball.

"There is one ‘but’. I’ve noticed they’ve briefed out that the 10 games [needed to trigger Elliott’s buy clause] is Premier League games, so I think there’s a decent chance we see Harvey Elliott playing in the Europa League."

Liverpool.com says: This summer, Elliott needs to find a permanent home, but it needs to be the right move. This season will have been frustrating for him, but he remains very talented and should still be able to kick on if he makes the correct decision.