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

[VillaTim]

Kids will be trying it in the park games this weekend

[AV84]

Was PSG one of the teams linked with Rashford? Maybe it was just idle speculation as they're one of the few that could afford him, but I'd imagine it's safe to say they have absolutely no need for him.

(Not a criticism of Rashford, just an observation of how good they are)

[Dave]

Was PSG one of the teams linked with Rashford? Maybe it was just idle speculation as they're one of the few that could afford him, but I'd imagine it's safe to say they have absolutely no need for him.

Yup, quite a few times over the last year or two.

[Brazilian Villain]

Manchester United boss Ruben Amorim will hold 'clear-the-air' talks with England forward Marcus Rashford this summer if the 27-year-old does not sign with Aston Villa permanently. (BBC Gossip from the Daily Star)

Is this a possible indication that we're not interested in signing him permanently?

[AV84]

I think it's highly unlikely we can afford him, even if we want to keep him. And, I think they shot themselves in the foot by forcing him out and then publicly agreeing a fee they'd sell him for.

They may well be resigned to the fact they're not going to get what they want for him, and realistically, they're going to end up having to bring him back.

[PeterWithesShin]

He's been decent, but not 40m fee and 300k+ a week decent yet.

[PaulWinch again]

The £40m fee wouldn’t concern in the context of modern football and what value is. The wages are the issue.

[Dave]

I think it turns out to be what a lot of people earlier in the thread thought it might - he's not shown enough to justify us throwing our entire summer weight behind bringing him in permanently, but he has shown enough to demonstrate to someone bigger and richer than us that Man Utd are definitely the problem rather than him, so why not add a bit more to their already-massive wage bill and add him to it.

Although - I don't think his "worth" to us is really being helped by trying to make him do cosplay Ollie Watkins. And if we were playing him more in the place that he plays well, he might have looked really good rather than just good. And we might have been more interested in bringing him in longer-term.

[AV84]

Has the Ollie cosplay been dictated by real Ollie carrying a knock? We played Rashford plenty of times in his preferred position and he looked really good. I don't see why we'd play him instead of Ollie if it wasn't necessary?

[Dave]

We spent £20m in January on a guy who runs around a lot, chases everything, is really quick, seems great at getting a shot away, has played the best football of his very decent career as a centre-forward and was signed by his previous club to be a centre-forward.

If Ollie isn't fit enough to do an Ollie Watkins role, there's a much more obvious replacement than Rashford.

[tomd2103]

I think it turns out to be what a lot of people earlier in the thread thought it might - he's not shown enough to justify us throwing our entire summer weight behind bringing him in permanently, but he has shown enough to demonstrate to someone bigger and richer than us that Man Utd are definitely the problem rather than him, so why not add a bit more to their already-massive wage bill and add him to it.

Although - I don't think his "worth" to us is really being helped by trying to make him do cosplay Ollie Watkins. And if we were playing him more in the place that he plays well, he might have looked really good rather than just good. And we might have been more interested in bringing him in longer-term.

The issue I see is that his favourite position is also the position where Morgan Rogers looks at his best, Jacob Ramsey plays and John McGinn can fill in when necessary. 

If we were going to spend the kind of money on him that has been quoted, then I would be looking at him as a central striker really and weighing up selling Ollie Watkins if a good offer came in. 

[Toronto Villa]

I think if we want Rashford, and Rashford wants to stay a deal will be agreed that won’t be what he’s being paid at Man U. Rashford isn’t daft. He’s found himself playing for a manager who believes in him. With players who like him annd fans who support him. After the nonsense of the past 2 years at Man U it must be great to just be surrounded by good people and now almost exclusively positive publicity. I just don’t think he will leave with money being the primary motivator. Now that’s not suggesting he’s going to play for free. He will still be paid very well, but if he stays it will be what we can afford based on our revenues and PSR/FFP commitments.

[eamonn]

He's doing OK but we need to spend our wages carefully going forward and he's not worth the money he's been used to getting.

[Matt C]

The media obsession with him is incredible. I only saw this because Tommy Jordan described it as “pathetic click bait” on Twitter:

“Aston Villa and Unai Emery handed clear wake-up call over Marcus Rashford decision”

That was the Mirror’s headline on their match report.

[PeterWithe]

I wonder if the decision to buy or not will be influenced at all by things like shirt sales with his name on etc? I'm another who thinks he has been decent rather than 'stand out' the way the papers would have you believe. He's no centre forward though and I dont think playing him there in recent games has done him any favours.