Marcus Rashford - signed on loan (injured - out for season?)

[Demitri_C]

As unhappy i am about this deal as i question whether  he still has it in him to still want to play top level football, i will get behind him and give him every opportunity to see ahat he can do.

As someone said above he definitely  is a step up from philiogene on his day.

Lets see if is willing to put the effort in. Whatever happens i wouldnt want us to sign on 300k a week wages. Thats disaster all over it

[Sexual Ealing]

I don’t think turning up late for training is a moral issue.

No, ripping off your employers and supporters of the club while earning a fortune has nothing to do with morals has it?  Doing very worthy charitable work hasn't always been a true reflection of a person's character has it?

After mulling it over, I'm firmly in the 'let's see' camp.  It could be just the move the lad needs to get himself and his career back on track, or it might be that he is too far gone and can't get himself going.  Not having to pay a loan fee means it's not a massive risk for us.

Either way, he deserves to be given a chance and the support of the fans when he gets here.

If he was ripping off his employers there'd be no £300k per week contract for them to worry about.

[jwarry]

Even Emery gets things wrong. Digne at centre back. Trying to play Duran and Ollie together. Signing Rashford. We all make mistakes. He just gets a lot more right than wrong. It's Monchi I worry about. His radar at the moment feels like a blind man with a dowsing rod.

Not sure I understand the analogy

[eamonn]

I don’t think turning up late for training is a moral issue.

No, ripping off your employers and supporters of the club while earning a fortune has nothing to do with morals has it?  Doing very worthy charitable work hasn't always been a true reflection of a person's character has it?

After mulling it over, I'm firmly in the 'let's see' camp.  It could be just the move the lad needs to get himself and his career back on track, or it might be that he is too far gone and can't get himself going.  Not having to pay a loan fee means it's not a massive risk for us.

Either way, he deserves to be given a chance and the support of the fans when he gets here.

If he was ripping off his employers there'd be no £300k per week contract for them to worry about.

That came after he produced the work worth 300k. The ol "new contract, can't be arsed" switcheroo then followed. Not that we haven't suffered from some of those.

[JUAN PABLO]

He is great finisher thou , something we desperately we need.

Laughing at the Manure fans, looking at  BAaley or Tel , wtf .    Shame we couldnt get Tel now  ..

[Bosco81]

I don’t think he’s ever claimed to be a socialist.

Maybe not, he just seems to crack on with stuff and let others interpret it, but I’d imagine he’s closer to Luca Digne than Matty Cash politically.

I doubt he’ll ever make an MP, if he can’t get to training when he should, he’ll never be able to make the trains run on time.

[jwarry]

Media trying to put a positive Utd spin on things….

But according to a fresh update from Ben Jacobs, the terms are even rosier for the Red Devils.

Taking to X, Jacobs claimed the exact nature of the deal is Villa will actually cover 75 percent of the salary and that figure can rise to a mind-boggling 90 percent pending performance-related objectives.

“Understand Manchester United will get minimum three-quarters wage recovery during Marcus Rashford’s Villa loan and up to 90% depending on performance-based bonuses,” wrote Jacobs. “Move to Villa finalised today. £40m option to buy.”

[tomd2103]

I don’t think turning up late for training is a moral issue.

No, ripping off your employers and supporters of the club while earning a fortune has nothing to do with morals has it?  Doing very worthy charitable work hasn't always been a true reflection of a person's character has it?

After mulling it over, I'm firmly in the 'let's see' camp.  It could be just the move the lad needs to get himself and his career back on track, or it might be that he is too far gone and can't get himself going.  Not having to pay a loan fee means it's not a massive risk for us.

Either way, he deserves to be given a chance and the support of the fans when he gets here.

If he was ripping off his employers there'd be no £300k per week contract for them to worry about.

I'd call turning up late or not even turning up for training and not trying a leg in games ripping your employers off to be honest.  We've had a number of them over the years to know all about that!!

He comes here with a clean slate for me though and I genuinely hope he can reproduce his best form with us, as he will be a real asset if he can.

[Goldenballs]

Is he a great finisher though?

GPT thinks otherwise. Take it with a pinch of salt though as sometimes it's well off.

In the 2023-2024 Premier League season, Ollie Watkins had a shot conversion rate of approximately 17.9%, scoring 19 goals from 106 shots.

In comparison, Marcus Rashford's shot conversion rate was approximately 11.3%, with 7 goals from 62 shots.

This indicates that Watkins was more efficient in converting his shots into goals during that season.

And Watkins gets slated for missing too much.

[Sexual Ealing]

If being bad at your job was a moral failure, hell would need to get outside investment from Comcast because it's going to need a bigger ground.

[aj2k77]

Rashford was shit last season. We're loaning him with the intention of getting his head focussed and turning him back in to the 22/23 Rashford who's stats i'm sure would be much more impressive.

[Goldenballs]

Rashford was shit last season. We're loaning him with the intention of getting his head focussed and turning him back in to the 22/23 Rashford who's stats i'm sure would be much more impressive.

That's a big ask in the couple of months we'll have him for though. Maybe decent numbers for someone playing off the left? Dunno.

In the 2022-2023 Premier League season, Marcus Rashford scored 17 goals from 108 shots, resulting in a shot conversion rate of approximately 15.7%.

[OCD]

Media trying to put a positive Utd spin on things….

But according to a fresh update from Ben Jacobs, the terms are even rosier for the Red Devils.

Taking to X, Jacobs claimed the exact nature of the deal is Villa will actually cover 75 percent of the salary and that figure can rise to a mind-boggling 90 percent pending performance-related objectives.

“Understand Manchester United will get minimum three-quarters wage recovery during Marcus Rashford’s Villa loan and up to 90% depending on performance-based bonuses,” wrote Jacobs. “Move to Villa finalised today. £40m option to buy.”

If those performance-based bonuses rely on him scoring enough goals for us to qualify for the CL again, I'm alright with that.

[JUAN PABLO]

Is he a great finisher though?

30 goals in a season would tell me he is ok to be fair.

[Russ aka Big Nose]

Some will be glass half empty and coming off the back of losing to the Dogheads we're all more grumpy than had we won yesterday, but I'm struggling to see why some see this deal (if it happens) as a guaranteed failure that will ruin our season.

If we were signing him on a permanent deal, then I get it, but we're not.

He's 27, capable of being of exceptional player and can cover two positions. Despite not being selected for several weeks, he's scored 7 goals in a side that has scored fewer league goals than us (I've not checked the comparative cup goals).

For us, other than Watkins, Duran, and Rogers, our next leading goalscorer is on 4.

He might sulk, he might not find form, and he might disrupt the squad. If he does, then he won't feature and Emery has to manage the impact on the squad.

For me, it's a punt, so inevitably there is a degree of risk. But provided it is only an option to buy and given the other attacking options we have, it's not an enormous risk. UTV