Liverpool journalist reveals REAL reason why Unai Emery is not playing Harvey Elliott at Aston Villa

The real reason why Aston Villa manager Unai Emery continues to ignore Harvey Elliott has been revealed by a Liverpool journalist, with sources telling TEAMtalk that the winger could be sent back to Anfield with a replacement already lined up.

Elliott left Liverpool for Villa on the final day of the summer transfer window, with the Villans having the obligation to make the loan deal permanent for £35million (€40m, $46.7m) in 2026. If Elliott makes 10 appearances Emery’s team this season, then Villa will have no choice but to pay that sum next summer.

As things stand, Elliott has made only five appearances for Aston Villa so far this season, with manager Emery publicly suggesting that he may not play him again.

Emery said on Wednesday: “We are speaking with him and about his situation. He is not here with us (in Basel for a Europa League game).

“Hopefully, we can get the best for him and the best for us. I respect him as a player and as a person.

“He is training well, but we have one circumstance with him. Hopefully, we can get a solution for him to try to play consistently and try to continue in his career with us or not.

“I have spoken with him two or three times about the situation we have with him.

“Firstly, my decision and also the situation. He is on loan playing with us, but he is not definitely adding to us with a permanent contract.”

It has now emerged that Emery did not want to sign Elliott for Villa in the first place; the winger’s deal was driven by Monchi, who left his role as the club’s sporting director just weeks later.

The Liverpool Echo’s Liverpool FC correspondent, Paul Gorst, has reported that “there is an acceptance that the decision to sign Elliott in the closing hours of the window was driven by former sporting director Monchi, who left Villa just weeks later”.

The well-informed and well-connected journalist added: “Emery, it is believed by those close to Villa, feels Elliott has yet to adapt to the demands placed on him and with the club still trying to avoid the pitfalls of the Premier League’s Profit and Sustainability Regulations, triggering a £35m fee for someone who isn’t in the plans would be a foolish move.”