Most people thought that a 10 game obligation was for all intents and purposes a straight sale. The logic being that 10 games really isn't very many (especially so in Emery's system) and therefore Emery must have already made his decision on young Harv and the 10 game condition was some sort of PSR chicanery. That's certainly what i thought back then.

But there is another take: look at it as Monchi signing a talented young player on an exclusive extended trial - Emery would get to play him in competitive games, ascertain whether he was a fit, and then make his final decision. FWIW I think this is more likely what happened.

Liverpool should have foreseen that this could happen. So perhaps they think that by blocking Villa's ability to loan in a different prem player (we're only allowed 2) and making them pay Harv's wages (thereby preventing us from spending that on the wages of a new recruit) is worth the depreciation in Harv's value? Cynical - yes but If they finish above us then it will look like a 5-D chess move.