I think his market value now is clearly much lower than £60m. Which is why I've said a good few times that if we'd sold him now for £40m - or got an obligation for it regardless of the loan success - then I'd be very pleased with that figure.
The discussion about his market value being above £40m is should the loan be a success - which, being only an option to buy, is the only real scenario that Villa would take it up. In that case, if we're talking of off the back of a Lingard at West Ham type loan, then his stock would be much higher and that's when £40m for an in form and PL proven 27 year old striker would be below market value.
Don't get me wrong though. I've no expectation that any upturn in Rashford's form would be long term. I think he's a moody, inconsistent performer who has purple patches every so often. I'm just saying that, without an obligation to buy, then the advantage of a loan should be that it puts him in the shop window if he has one of those purple patches. But by agreeing to a lower fee when his stock is low, we've removed that advantage to ourselves and handed control to Villa instead.