Matt Maher: Aston Villa's model has its flaws - but there's no doubt who's in control

When the 22-year-old joined Villa at the start of September on loan from Liverpool he believed he was making the move which would best put him in a position to challenge for a place in England’s World Cup squad.

Elliott spoke of how the “loving figure” of Villa boss Unai Emery could help take his game to the next level.

Some love. Just four months on, the midfielder is facing up to the threat of a completely wasted campaign unless his representatives and both clubs can come up with a solution before the end of January.

The problem, as many will know, is a clause in the loan deal which requires Villa to buy Elliott permanently once he has made 10 appearances in their colours.

Back in September, the player unknowingly uttered something prophetic when he said working for Emery “is going to be the best thing for me, so long as he trusts me”.

Well, it turns out he doesn’t. Or at least, not enough to commit £35million.

Yet while the biggest issue might be the small print in the contract, the Elliott story is also an example of a flaw in Villa’s decision to put all power in the hands of their manager.

The fact Emery is so hands-on, combined with the club’s well-publicised financial fair play issues, can give their transfer dealings an element of organised chaos.

Or, in the case of the last summer window, just chaos. Beaten 3-0 at home by Crystal Palace to finish August with just one point from the first three Premier League matches and with doubts swirling over the future of Emi Martinez, Villa’s deadline day business had more than a little tinge of desperation with Elliott, a player who had been available all summer but swerved by the rest of the Premier League, joining alongside Manchester United outcast Jadon Sancho.

Whether either of those deals would have happened had Villa a sporting director/president of football operations with genuine power is highly questionable. Instead, in Elliott’s case, Emery was very quickly left with buyer’s remorse.

On the flip side, the control the manager enjoys means making the kind of error which, at other clubs, would risk doing lasting damage to key relationships is quickly brushed aside.

If there is a strength to Villa’s model, apart from the fact they have clearly backed a brilliant coach, it is no-one is ever in any doubt as to who is in charge.

It certainly looks better than the situation at Chelsea and Manchester United, who both in the space of days saw their head coaches depart chiefly because they could no longer work within the systems of either clubs.

With just 24 wins from his 63 matches in charge, there were many who believed Ruben Amorim should have considered himself fortunate to still be in a job at Old Trafford.

Yet his exit earlier this week was triggered, it appears, not by results but a bust-up with sporting director Jason Wilcox over his tactics.

In his final press conference as United boss, following last weekend’s 1-1 draw at Leeds, Amorim railed at only being “head coach” and not “manager”, a transition Emery significantly made when signing a five-year contract in 2024.

At Villa Park, power clearly lies in his office but at Old Trafford, it is often difficult to discern just who has the final say.

Is it Wilcox, chief executive Omar Berrada or director of recruitment Christopher Vivell, three men whose job descriptions would appear to overlap? 

Or is it actually the club’s owner, Sir Jim Ratcliffe, whose penchant for getting involved in football matters was this week cited as one of the key reasons for Dan Ashworth’s exit after just five months as sporting director (United infamously waited around seven months to get him from Newcastle) in December, 2024.

Wilcox, Berrada and Vivell may all be very talented but it is debated whether you need all three. There has long been a sense of there being too many voices at Old Trafford.

It is the same at Chelsea, who following their takeover by BlueCo Capital in 2022 decided to employ not one but two sporting directors, with Paul Winstanley and Laurence Stewart both placed in charge of a leadership team which, since the start of November, now includes three “junior” sporting directors in Dave Fallows, Joe Shields and Sam Jewell.

All three have different remits but the question remains who, precisely, has the final say?

The one certainty is it was not Enzo Maresca, who like Amorim at United appears to have become increasingly frustrated by the limitations on his power.

You can understand his point. It is the head coach, after all, who has to front up to what happens on the pitch, even when it might be decisions by those above - in some cases people supporters could walk past on the street without recognising - which have the biggest impact.

The counter argument is sporting directors provide clubs with a sense of continuity whenever a head coach departs. There’s certainly no doubt the biggest long-term question facing Villa is what happens after Emery departs. Giving so much power to one man is fine until you have to change the man.

Yet while Villa’s current model is not without its flaws, it does at least provide the kind of clarity others might crave.