Fulham are finally set to put the Harvey Elliott saga to bed this week, and while there may be a conclusion coming soon, it may not be the payoff that the Whites deserve.
Indeed, Fulham and Liverpool can’t agree on compensation for the player, and while Fulham have set an asking price, it seems to be too low.
Of course, the £10m that Fulham are asking for is better than the lowly fee that Liverpool initially proposed.
Liverpool’s valuation of under £1m for a player who is the youngest to ever appear in the Premier League and a graduate from a category one academy is utterly laughable, but even if the fee they have to pay is £10m, that may still represent a bad deal for Fulham.
Yes, it’s a a lot of money for a player who’d never started a league game before he joined Liverpool, but when you factor in everything he’s already done in his career, you’d have to say he’s worth more than that.
We’re talking about a 17-year-old with four goals and eight assists in the Championship in half a season, and if he was a Blackburn graduate rather than a Liverpool loanee, we’d surely be talking about one of the brightest young assets in the EFL.
We’ve seen young players move for bigger fees on the back of lesser performances. Just look at Rhian Brewster who got a move worth £23.5m after 11 goal contributions in half a season at Swansea.
Factor in that Brewster is older than Elliott and it begins to look even more ridiculous.
Ironically, the last time a player burst onto the scene like this at such an age was Ryan Sessegnon, and despite reports claiming that Fulham see Elliott as a similar talent to Sessegnon, they’re asking for £15m less for him.
You’re never going to get a player’s true value from one of these arbitrations, unfortunately, that’s how the system has been set up, but even if Fulham get the £10m they’re asking for, they have every right to feel hard done by.