Liverpool given shock update on dropped loanee’s January return

When we are promised ‘the truth about Harvey Elliott’s Aston Villa contract and whether he can return to Liverpool in January’, you sort of expect to be told at least one of those things.

Ruby whacks
‘TROLL OF THE DYCHE’ reads the back page of The Sun, which leads on how Ruben Amorim ‘hit back’ at Sean Dyche on Thursday.

It is lovely to see Samuel Luckhurst grace such a prominent platform – these Mediawatch columns can be difficult to pad out sometimes – and it is he who writes that Amorim ‘accused Sean Dyche of putting on an act when he was a pundit’.

And he sort of did. But the Manchester United manager was a) speaking broadly about all pundits, b) made a completely fair point and c) neither ‘hit back’ at nor made any ‘accusations’ of Dyche.

It’s a cute headline but stands up to precisely no scrutiny when you actually read what Amorim said. Or better yet, watch it:

“If you’re a pundit and you don’t say strong things, I don’t want to watch you.”

Ruben Amorim responds to Sean Dyche’s comments after Dyche claimed on The Overlap podcast in May that he would win more games than Amorim if he were managing Manchester United 🗣️ pic.twitter.com/I5v9VMcaP9

— Sky Sports Premier League (@SkySportsPL) October 30, 2025

It’s just a remarkably diplomatic and right thing to say, isn’t it? Amorim literally admits “really smart” Dyche was probably right that Manchester United would have won more games under him playing 4-4-2, while pointing out the obvious and fundamental differences between doing punditry work and coaching.

TROLL OF THE DYCHE? Roll of the eyes more like.

READ MORE: Was October 2025 the greatest Man Utd month since Sir Alex Ferguson retired?

Hits radio
The MailOnline try a similar line with their story…

‘Man United boss Ruben Amorim hits back at Sean Dyche’s claim he’d ‘win more games’ at the club playing 4-4-2′

Which is unfortunately thoroughly undermined by the actual words that Chris Wheeler writes, like ‘Ruben Amorim insists he hasn’t taken criticism from Sean Dyche personally’, and ‘Amorim gave Dyche the benefit of the doubt’.

‘Hits back’ indeed.

Slot machine
This is very much a MailOnline headline writer problem because…

‘Arne Slot hits back after being accused of ‘making excuses’ about his expensive Liverpool squad – and says he is in no rush to sign a new deal’

If saying “I am happy that you asked this question” and “I am completely happy with the team, all the quality that we have and completely convinced with the strategy and the policy we have” before pinpointing the problem as a lack of a proper pre-season for much of his Liverpool squad, then Slot’s absolutely ‘hit back’ alright.

But he didn’t really say he’s ‘in no rush to sign a new deal’. He simply said his “focus” is on the seemingly impossible task of stopping Liverpool losing games, and that he would “never speak about” his contract situation in public anyway. Which is not the same thing.

Sorry, Mediawatch appears to have accidentally hit back there.

Bloody Ell
Staying with the MailOnline, it has to be said that is a sensational exclusive from Tom Collomosse and Lewis Steele:

‘Revealed: The truth about Harvey Elliott’s Aston Villa contract and whether he can return to Liverpool in January’

It very specifically promises that two pieces of important information will be exclusively revealed in this story: ‘the truth’ about Elliott’s contract at Villa (Mediawatch wasn’t aware of any conspiracy theories being floated around but okay) and ‘whether he can return to Liverpool in January’.

The latter is a particular tabloid website favourite: the media absolutely loves to pretend that recall clauses exist in deals that quite clearly have no recall clauses.

But this is somehow even better. Because the one mention of the word ‘January’ is contained entirely within the headline. At no point whatsoever is it answered or even alluded to ‘whether Elliott can return to Liverpool in January’.

It remains fairly obvious he can’t – Villa would have been remarkably daft to leave that fine print in over a player they plan to sign for £35m next summer, even if he has been dropped – but the undelivered promise of exclusive information on that is a bit weird.

At least we still have ‘the truth about Harvey Elliott’s Aston Villa contract’, because ‘Mail Sport can reveal’ that the buy obligation becomes active ‘once Elliott has played a certain number of games’.

Ten, for example. As reported by James Pearce of The Athletic 60 whole days ago.

Aston Villa’s obligation to buy Harvey Elliott for £35m will be triggered as long as he makes 10 appearances for them this season.#LFC https://t.co/BLngNSHdIa

— James Pearce (@JamesPearceLFC) September 1, 2025

It is almost impressive to have two journalists produce a 308-word exclusive which actually reveals precisely nothing.

To be Frank
‘Lampard unrecognisable in Halloween outfit as he reveals his spooky tradition’ – The Sun website.

A couple of things:

1) Are you familiar with the concept of a Halloween costume? A person dressing up as a ‘swamp monster’ complete with mask probably should be ‘unrecognisable’.

2) Not sure ‘trying to frighten people’ at Halloween can be described as specifically ‘his spooky tradition’.

“There is a fortunate by-product in that I do still get some sweets,” is a potentially great lead-in to a theoretical Lampardian transition about how he takes the trick-or-treating basics seriously, mind.

Ace watch
‘ Ex-Premier League ace, 39, joins ninth club of his career in time for FA Cup’ – The Sun website.

Adrian sodding Mariappa.