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

[Simon Page]

Just worries me that you called an article written in B1 English 'impenetrable'. Makes me wonder what your definition of 'clever' is.

Also, someone who doesn't like clichés calls someone else 'Fauntleroy'. That's some original shit.

The point, rather than the individual words, is impenetrable, as should not have been clear from one's polysemic post.

[Monty]

The point is Barney Ronay writes about things in a Barney Ronay style, which gets the Graun site views. So they keep doing it. It's a bit like going to a stand-up act and saying, you know, I learned a lot about Rodney Dangerfield, but what was his point about mothers-in-law? Impenetrable!

[Sexual Ealing]

I didn't think for a second that you were a sub, Simon. I'm a fan of your work on here, we're just having a minor dispute about the work of Barney Ronay. A stand-off between two sordid emperors beside a TKMaxx discount bin, as he probably wouldn't say.

[SaddVillan]

Read it last night. Think it needs a 2nd read.

Basically:

 He's not the Messiah, but with better handling could have been a top, top player. And under Emery’ he might well be.

[Simon Page]

The point is Barney Ronay writes about things in a Barney Ronay way? Which gets the Graun website views? So they keep doing it? It's a bit like going to a stand-up act and saying, you know, I learned a lot about Rodney Dangerfield, but what was his point about mothers-in-law? Impenetrable!

First bit, yes I get it. Analogy, not so much. Unless the stand-up routine was being presented for discussion in the context of a Rodney Dangerfield thread, or Barney Ronay was writing a funny column about Barney Ronay (as Flex might stutter). Just one line to save me typing reams of HTML:

There is a kind of trap here, Flex’s Conundrum, which states that it is impossible to discuss Rashford properly because he doesn’t really play much football and isn’t that interesting when he does; at the same time it is also impossible to stop discussing him because he’s Marcus Rashford.

Neither is correct. His point on Marcus Rashford is not so much not thought through, more non-existent and baseless. It would be no better or worse if he shouted GARLIC BREAD every fourth par.

However, I'm happy for Ronay to keep doing what he does and for people to like it. If it was a thread about Ronay's style, I'd probably avoid it like the rugby one.

[Monty]

He hasn't played since whenever, and his goals and assists record are no great shakes, yet he gets an inordinate amount of media attention. If you want me to agree that the point is banal, well, I can see that. But for 'non-existent and baseless' you probably couldn't have produced a worse example.

Also I am fairly certain he didn't write the piece with the H&V Rashford thread in mind, so criticising it for not contributing to it seems a little unfair!

At least we agree on rugby.

[Drummond]

He has a 1 in 3 goals record for club and country.

[Simon Page]

He's played 24 times this season and has something close to 500 first class appearances for Manchester United and England - ave 50 per year.

But I love you for sharing my lack of love for ovals.

[Monty]

In the Premier League, 87 in 287. Watkins has 69 in 170.

And I'll agree that 'doesn't really play much football' is a bit sloppy (though we all know what he means).
As long as you don't betray us for golf like russon.

[Hookeysmith]

Just as i was almost coming to terms with the loan deal he goes and states, quite categorically that he is "Here for the short term"

Not the way to start off is it?

Would rather something along the lines "I would like to think that what i can bring here will give me the opportunity to stay full time"  Even if he does not mean it its better than sounding like - i will use Villa and once that bellend Amorim is fired ill go back, especially as he is the only one of the 3 that has a buy option.

[Sexual Ealing]

He's accurately describing the terms of his contract.

[Toronto Villa]

yeh I don't see an issue at all. The terms of the contract is exactly that; a short term loan deal. He's still officially a Man U player. But the fact that the clubs and player agreed to pretty modest buy clause if it works out suggests he would be open to moving. I think he's said all the right things since he arrived.

[Footy-Vill]

Breaking down the athletic article TV shared on transfers for each player and some key pieces.


Marcus Rashford’s arrival encapsulated Aston Villa’s transfer window.

It was unexpected and a product of a volatile market, stretching several targets, setbacks and late frenzy.

Rashford was Villa’s marquee signing. They had signed one of Britain’s most talked about footballers, known for his inherent talent but equally increasing concerns. Unai Emery was enamoured with Rashford and encouraged by him being out of favour at Manchester United.

"At his best, Emery regards Rashford among the most threatening attackers in the world and backs himself to rejuvenate the 27-year-old. When it became evident there were diminishing alternatives for Rashford and Villa could make the finances work — largely owing to what had gone before in the window — senior figures quickly pressed ahead.

Villa will contribute a minimum of three-quarters of Rashford’s wages, which stands at more than £325,000 (€390,000, $403,500) per week and up to 90 per cent depending on performance-based bonuses.

Sources at Villa and close to players, speaking on the condition of anonymity to protect relationships, expressed their excitement at the signing, believing Emery, who thinks Rashford can operate on both flanks, as a No 10 and lone striker, will tap into a different side of the player’s personality and provide a platform to perform at his best. Villa possess an option to buy for £40million (€48.17m, $49.67m)

The swift nature of Rashford’s signing — with The Athletic reporting talks had started on Friday afternoon and the deal wrapped up Sunday night — underlined how the landscape changed almost daily at Villa."

[supertom]

For me, Rashford and perhaps more so Arsensio, I'm hoping these are a Carbone-type loan. Contribute, have an impact and then we say goodbye and move on in the summer. Asensio is getting close to 30 with questionable injuries.

But for Rashford, I feel like it could be similar to the Lingard/West Ham. Get him with a point to prove and hopefully keen to raise his game.
I suspect if we were to keep Rashford long-term, he'd probably be a bit underwhelmed coming here and not going to a PSG or Barca as he may have expected. He'll be having one eye on the exit all next season.

Of course, he could love it here, the style and feeling less pressure to carry a team on his shoulder and may want to stay longer. I'd still worry he could slip back to malaise though.

I think he's going to be good for us, but even if he bangs in 10 goals I don't think we should just jump in and make it permanent. I feel this is potentially best as a short and romantic tryst, like Beni (that one not becoming permanent was of course different circumstances). I think much like the most expensive firework out the back of that van, we'll see an explosive impact before he inevitably fizzles out quickly. Like Coutinho. So let's get to May and evaluate whether it's best to wave goodbye before the fizzle starts.

[paul_e]

I'm not sure about that. Assuming he plays well I think the biggest factor in whether we take up the option will be whether we're in the champions League again or not.