Marcus Rashford (out) | signs for Villa on loan

[moses]

When was the last time we as a team have consistently put in good performances? Last time I checked, we have 23 points in 20 matches. We lost multiple games with Rashford out of the team. In the context of some of the awful teams that he has played in, his record is better than you want to admit. Players in bad teams don't normally perform at a high level. No Ballon d'Or winners playing in teams that are barely above the relegation zone.

Even Postecoglou said that Salah would struggle at Spurs and Spurs are ahead of us in the table. Salah is one of the best players in the world but he also plays in one of the best teams. The team plays a huge part in individual success.

If you want to talk about how poor Rashford is then you also have to speak about how poor most of the teams he has played in have been. But providing context wouldn't fit your narrative.

But please let us know about these great team performances.

You're ignoring the fact that he's been left out of matchday squads.

 

[MiracleInMadrid]

But you seem to be taking that as it will happen 1000% when in reality based on his whole career and especially the last 2/3 years what you're more likely to get is the same shite we've seen recently, so his value is more likely to go down if anything!
He can't be arsed to do it for the last 2 years + for the club he loves so much yet you keep saying he'll knuckle down for a club that means absolutely nothing to him and he's likely going to be getting a shit load less money if he moves to another club!

Oh and before you say it again. I don't hate him but how his attitude has been the last few years is absolutely disgusting and then he goes on the piss to make it even worse! He's a lazy arse and I'm pretty sure (92.8%) that won't change!

This. I expect a Sancho-like situation, but obviously hope he will prove me wrong.

Keeping in mind, that if he goes on loan to a team challenging for a title or a european spot, he may only get a few chances to win the patience of the new club. Especially if the club has loaned him on reduced wages and with no obligation to buy.

He’ll have to kick on right away.

 

[spwd]

What annoys me in this is the fact that the player wants to leave, we seemingly want him to leave, someone wants to buy him, his performances haven't been up to scratch, and yet United are expected to fund some of his salary because he wants to keep his £350k* a week.

If a club wants him, then they pay his market value, and then they go to Rashford and say, "Actually bud, we can only give you £150k a week, soz, take it or leave it". None of this, "We really want him, but Marcus wants to keep his massive wage so we're going to deduct the difference from our bid".

Sick of it.

Yeah I agree with this. He's the one that's said he wants to leave so he should expect to have his contract void in may and he can feck off wherever he likes and we get a better price for him.

 

[Cathy Ferguson]

If we want to get rid of him we will have to pay him 200k per week to play for another club. I don't think he'll sign for another club and take a major pay cut to 150k per week. No surprise at all if he sits out his contract.

 

[Telsim]

What annoys me in this is the fact that the player wants to leave, we seemingly want him to leave, someone wants to buy him, his performances haven't been up to scratch, and yet United are expected to fund some of his salary because he wants to keep his £350k* a week.

If a club wants him, then they pay his market value, and then they go to Rashford and say, "Actually bud, we can only give you £150k a week, soz, take it or leave it". None of this, "We really want him, but Marcus wants to keep his massive wage so we're going to deduct the difference from our bid".

Sick of it.

Then don't offer contracts you don't want to see out. As far as this issue goes, it's not Rashford's fault. Other clubs don't owe United any favours either. Everyone wants to do what's best for them and United's hand is weakest here by far.

 

[bb8]

What annoys me in this is the fact that the player wants to leave, we seemingly want him to leave, someone wants to buy him, his performances haven't been up to scratch, and yet United are expected to fund some of his salary because he wants to keep his £350k* a week.

If a club wants him, then they pay his market value, and then they go to Rashford and say, "Actually bud, we can only give you £150k a week, soz, take it or leave it". None of this, "We really want him, but Marcus wants to keep his massive wage so we're going to deduct the difference from our bid".

Sick of it.

Not sure what you expect. If you had a guaranteed contract you'd be a massive fool to agree to reduce it by 50%. The onus is on us to not give bad contracts, not other teams to do us some favor nor a player to cut his own pay. We're the ones who made a mistake.

 

[stepic]

That's fine, but why the feck should a club he doesn't want to play for stump up for it. It's mind blowing. I know football is it's own bubble, but imagine I do shit at work, they decide they don't want me any more and I want to leave so I go to another company and get a pay cut, but then expect my current company to make up the shortfall. It's madness.

In that situation would you really leave if the next company was paying you 50% less, and you could just as easily stay where you are and do feck all?

 

[DavelinaJolie]

That's fine, but why the feck should a club he doesn't want to play for stump up for it. It's mind blowing. I know football is it's own bubble, but imagine I do shit at work, they decide they don't want me any more and I want to leave so I go to another company and get a pay cut, but then expect my current company to make up the shortfall. It's madness.

Because that club gave him a contract saying they'd pay that, presumably.

I imagine the sum total of your work contract discussions were the company putting a bit of paper in front of you and you signing it. Rashford's representation will have spent a good while working out the finer points of his contract with the club. You're right, football is its own bubble, because the money in it is so insane the people involved have representation to protect their interests. In this event the club gave too much to Rashford in terms of compensation, and are now having to eat it.

No point getting worked up over it really as it has already happened. Club just has to find a way to deal with the consequences.

 

[Roboc7]

What annoys me in this is the fact that the player wants to leave, we seemingly want him to leave, someone wants to buy him, his performances haven't been up to scratch, and yet United are expected to fund some of his salary because he wants to keep his £350k* a week.

If a club wants him, then they pay his market value, and then they go to Rashford and say, "Actually bud, we can only give you £150k a week, soz, take it or leave it". None of this, "We really want him, but Marcus wants to keep his massive wage so we're going to deduct the difference from our bid".

Sick of it.

It’s crazy how football works, it just shows how in this era of football you have to be so careful about the transfer fees and wages you pay. Casemiro, Rashford and Antony are such terrible deals and we’re now stuck with all of them.

The consequences of big money signings and wages that don’t work out is huge and sadly we have been one of the worst culprits.

 

[Rossa]

He didn't elaborate on what that challenge was, for all we know that could be 3 years of training to become FIFA 2028 champion

If United want him out it's going to cost them one way or another

Why not tell him if he wants a loan or a move, he needs to accept those offers as are? If not, he will be at best a squad player at United, albeit an expensive one for the club. He didn't want to go to Saudi, so he has some ambitions.

 

[Red in STL]

Why not tell him if he wants a loan or a move, he needs to accept those offers as are? If not, he will be at best a squad player at United, albeit an expensive one for the club. He didn't want to go to Saudi, so he has some ambitions.

TBH I think many don't want him as a squad player either

It's entirely up to Rashford, the club can't force him out, he will know what the options are

 

[lex talionis]

I don't really see why you oppose option #1 "under any circumstances"? It certainly seems far better than option #3. We'd get minimum £5M to loan him out, probably closer to £10M with a loan fee. That's better than paying him to sit at home.

Yes, but the key words in my post you quoted were "fund his wages" and that prospect has me concerned.

Let's take it as a given fact that Rashford is on 350k/week and let's stipulate that Rashford will not accept a wage cut. It might be less since we're not in the CL but let's stick with that number. My understanding is that Arsenal's highest paid player is Havertz at 280k/week. If Arsenal were willing to pay us 10m and pay Rashford 280k/week, meaning of course we eat 70k/weekly that might be good business on our part, but it's hard to believe that Arsenal would be willing to dig that deep into their pockets for a player who has badly underperformed for quite a long time now, has had only one great season, and isn't at all built for Arsenal's tactics under Arteta.

The calculus changes is Rashford is willing to accept a substantial wage cut to to join a club like Arsenal or West Ham, the latter being an even more unlikely destination. There may be a second tier club willing to spend that kind of money, but Rashford envisions himself as a top tier player, unworthy of clubs like West Ham or possibly even Arsenal, who have incredibly won even fewer trophies than United in recent years despite how horrifying our overall play has been. Arsenal supporters are ridiculously abusive toward their own players, a fact which I wasn't aware of until the last 48 hours. I really don't think Rashford would be wise to go to a club like Arsenal right now, a club which is reeling and their manager is under pressure. And with the reputation that Rashford has for being an overpaid, underperforming partyer, going to Arsenal even on loan would be disastrous for him...and we certainly can't expect United to underwrite this folly unless it is for the express purpose of tanking the rest of Arsenal's season. I can't think of any reason why Arsenal would want Rashford, or how West Ham would be willing to take on his astronomical wages, or why United would be willing to cover the wages of Rashford while playing for West Ham.

 

[Shark]

It’s crazy how football works, it just shows how in this era of football you have to be so careful about the transfer fees and wages you pay. Casemiro, Rashford and Antony are such terrible deals and we’re now stuck with all of them.

The consequences of big money signings and wages that don’t work out is huge and sadly we have been one of the worst culprits.

We must be the worst in world football over the past decade, or more.

 

[Roboc7]

We must be the worst in world football over the past decade, or more.

Absolutely and we just didn’t learn our lesson, Murtough and Arnold had a front seat to what not do and then went and bought Antony and Casemiro.

It’s going to take three years to gradually rid ourselves of that legacy.

 

[Grande]

It is what it is. He thinks he is worth 350k per week and wants to play in top European level.

Unfortunately for him, he’s certain to have to chose, as nobody else think he’s worth those kinds of wages, and that easily means taking a cut or sitting in the stands at Old Trafford, which probably isn’t his idea of top European level. It’s his negotiations and choice to make though.

Unfortunately for us, he’s likely to opt for the latter, which we really can’t afford if we want to improve our spending options. Our choice is between loaning out and pay part of wages hoping we will be compensated with a higher fee in July than achievable now, and selling for pocket change now. Loaning worked with Sancho (maybe), but not with Martial.

Ah, I remember the time I looked at Rashford, Martial, Greenwood and Pogba and thought we were sorted. Unfortunately, so did they, apparently.

 

[Valencia Shin Crosses]

We must be the worst in world football over the past decade, or more.

It's not really close either. Paying an overinflated transfer fee, and then overinflated wages, for players while simultaneously not building the squad properly around them with any sort of vision just hemmorages the club. Add in the fact that we'd often refuse to sell players until they've tanked their value to nothing, and the result is what you've seen in recent years.

 

[Nickosaur]

Would love Arsenal to help us out. He'd get more goals than Havertz I reckon!

 

[TheRedHearted]

What annoys me in this is the fact that the player wants to leave, we seemingly want him to leave, someone wants to buy him, his performances haven't been up to scratch, and yet United are expected to fund some of his salary because he wants to keep his £350k* a week.

If a club wants him, then they pay his market value, and then they go to Rashford and say, "Actually bud, we can only give you £150k a week, soz, take it or leave it". None of this, "We really want him, but Marcus wants to keep his massive wage so we're going to deduct the difference from our bid".

Sick of it.

Agreed. We have to negotiate for something in the middle. He’s been terrible for us and has to accept that blame. He hasn’t been worth the enormous fee he’s received every week, now comes the time for him to realize we can’t sell him because of that, and no one else will give him that fee. He was signed on big wages to be a top performer. Hasn’t happened. Why should we be stuck at 350 when the goals haven’t been there

It is what it is. He thinks he is worth 350k per week and wants to play in top European level.

Well if he was worth it we could have sold him for a large transfer fee.

It’s because if we don’t offer to cover his wages he’d be more than happy to sit around collecting his mega wages doing feck all. Don’t have an issue with it - it’s just how the business side of it works.

Then he’ll never play for England again.

Then don't offer contracts you don't want to see out. As far as this issue goes, it's not Rashford's fault. Other clubs don't owe United any favours either. Everyone wants to do what's best for them and United's hand is weakest here by far.

See answer directly below, both parties are at fault. If he would have been performing worth his wages we would be able to sell him for 65 million, even more actually.

Not sure what you expect. If you had a guaranteed contract you'd be a massive fool to agree to reduce it by 50%. The onus is on us to not give bad contracts, not other teams to do us some favor nor a player to cut his own pay. We're the ones who made a mistake.

And the onus is on the player to perform when making an incredible 350,000 a week. At least pretend like you’re not sulking and giving it your all. How many weeks did he collect 350,000 without deserving it?

In that situation would you really leave if the next company was paying you 50% less, and you could just as easily stay where you are and do feck all?

In the situation that you want to play for England come the World Cup. It’s clear as day he wants to make the squad. You don’t make the squad by sitting on the bench

 

[Katy Cat]

This all comes down to his wage level. More specifically, the decision to hand a top end contract - for simplicity, let's call it a world-class level contract - to a player who never has been and never will be world class*. Or anywhere near it: I see people pointing to his 30 goal season and a record of scoring in 'big games' against the best teams, but, against any credible assessment, he's failed to prove himself anywhere near the level of someone like a Sala.

Outside of the Saudi league / MLS, there are a relative handful of clubs able and willing to pay players £300K and none of them are going to be interested. For obvious reasons. He's simply not worth that sort of commitment, even with the latent value of Brand Marcus.

Now put yourself in the position of being the executive at the next tier of clubs. Clubs, like Dortmund, Milan or, closer to home, West Ham, who might be interested in bringing him in, because they look at how he's performed in previous hot streaks and, yep, they start thinking about that marketing potential.

Assuming you're an executive, doing a good job (maybe a stretch in West Ham's example but stick with me here), with a proper governance structure, you're having to consider the impact on your wage structure of anything even approaching his current deal; his now 18 months of sustained downturn in form, including a visible and consistent lack of effort in games; the risk that a player so reliant on pace is going start declining; and growing evidence that multiple managers have experienced problems with his application, attitude and - a good guess I think - the entourage surrounding him.

You'd look at all this and decide you'd be completely mad to shell-out £50m or more and £250K+ in weekly wages. It's implausible. Which is why it isn't happening.

Moving it into the realm of a possible future deal, means some something needs to happen around Rashford accepting a lower wage (based on prioritising regular football at a good level and a chance to both repair his reputation and regain his England place for next year's WC) and / or us accepting a low fee of around £20-25m (allowing the buying club to optimise a pay deal and reduce the risk exposure, and allowing us to get rid of him).

I'd say the second of these scenarios is the more probable scenario, given he's under contract until 2028.

* For balance, Rashford's contract position was always going to be a challenge, however you looked at it. You can imagine the howls of protest here if we hadn't retained him, however it's obvious that a well-run club should have seriously considered unloading him to the likes of PSG. If that was ever a transfer to be done.

 

[Marwood]

What annoys me in this is the fact that the player wants to leave, we seemingly want him to leave, someone wants to buy him, his performances haven't been up to scratch, and yet United are expected to fund some of his salary because he wants to keep his £350k* a week.

If a club wants him, then they pay his market value, and then they go to Rashford and say, "Actually bud, we can only give you £150k a week, soz, take it or leave it". None of this, "We really want him, but Marcus wants to keep his massive wage so we're going to deduct the difference from our bid".

Sick of it.

Absolutely.

How or when did it become a thing that the players wage should never drop.

 

[lex talionis]

I just look at the morale and commitment of the lads that play since he was isolated. No way we can bring him back. If I was a buying club I would want United to pay off his surplus wages (out of the transfer fee) so he comes in on a respectable wage. Means we might get a fee of 40-60M but need to write a 20M cheque out of it. Would be a good outcome all round.

I know it’s not practical for many reasons but if we get to door 3 I would love to just make him help fix the roof, paint the stands, pull pints on match days or whatever to see what real work is like for the suppporters who ultimately pay him if he refuses to accept whatever the best available offer is. I’ve nothing against him, he gave us some great moments but it’s not right to take that salary and not put in the work. If he wants to be paid and not work at football let him do something useful.

But Marcus can take the road of redemption if he so wishes. It's not as though he's incompetent. His ability may have always been limited to pace and power, but he does have a powerful shot in him that can be useful in certain situations. I would still like to find another club for him, but not if we have to carry his wages. If we have to carry his wages, we might as well use him as a squad man until his contact runs down. After this transfer period if he's not gone I have to believe he will make some kind of effort to contribute to the squad and not down tools for the next 3 seasons.

 

[r0663664]

I really find in it odd about Rashford, he seems to be down to earth when he speaks and I think he loves United. I think what he has is mental issues of living up to expectations for the club and fans. Due his the wages that he is on, the media has single him out on everything that he do. Emotionally he is affected and he can't find joy playing in England that is why he wants to leave. I don't think he will find any peace if he continues to stay in England. For his sake, he should accept lower wages for better mental health. If he accept lower wages then expectations will be reduce from club and fans. Let's hope he realise what he needs and move on with his life.

 

[RopersReturn]

I really find in it odd about Rashford, he seems to be down to earth when he speaks and I think he loves United. I think what he has is mental issues of living up to expectations for the club and fans. Due his the wages that he is on, the media has single him out on everything that he do. Emotionally he is affected and he can't find joy playing in England that is why he wants to leave. I don't think he will find any peace if he continues to stay in England. For his sake, he should accept lower wages for better mental health. If he accept lower wages then expectations will be reduce from club and fans. Let's hope he realise what he needs and move on with his life.

I think they’ll come a point soon when he turns his back on football completely to take up an ambassador role for an organisation like UNICEF.

 

[Irishman]

He will not be able to get a club because he will not drop his obscene wages. He will leave as a free agent in 3 years time.

 

[pascell]

I think they’ll come a point soon when he turns his back on football completely to take up an ambassador role for an organisation like UNICEF.

I agree, the way he's physically declining and given how reliant his skillet is on pace, he'll retire early 30s.

 

[Red in STL]

Absolutely.

How or when did it become a thing that the players wage should never drop.

Akways been that way, you agree a contract and that's it until you negotiate another one

 

[McTerminator]

He will not be able to get a club because he will not drop his obscene wages. He will leave as a free agent in 3 years time.

As long as he rots in the reserves for three years and effectively ends his career then so be it. That’s the trade off we have to force him to make here.

 

[golden_blunder]

I agree, the way he's physically declining and given how reliant his skillet is on pace, he'll retire early 30s.

Been saying that for the last 2 years. Don’t see anything from him to indicate that he still loves football

 

[Edgio]

If there's no decent offer you just make him sit it out imo. He either sorts his head out and fights for his place or he's damaging the club he wouldn't utter a bad word about. He might think he's worth 350k a week still but that was based on a 30+ goal season, not the dogshit he's produced recently.

The club should not deal out such ridiculous contracts and some footballers lack self awareness, amongst other things.

 

[tenpoless]

That salary really makes the club look like a fool... no one in the world outside of City and maybe Madrid can afford that. And they don't want him. Imagine having an asset with ONLY TWO potential customers in the world. Half of that and there'd be plenty of clubs interested. We deserve it.

 

[Bwuk]

This reeks of a loan on deadline day to Spurs.

No one seems to want him, and Amorims not going to start using him either.

 

[Tarrou]

Absolutely.

How or when did it become a thing that the players wage should never drop.

I believe contract law became in a thing in the 18th century

 

[croadyman]

He will not be able to get a club because he will not drop his obscene wages. He will leave as a free agent in 3 years time.

Yeah the wages we pay him are totally obscene

 

[iKnowNothing]

I’m not expert with this stuff but please humor me..

From what I’m seeing online, Rashford is on 350k a week, and his contract runs until June 2028. That’s approximately 42 months from now. 4 weeks a month is 42*4 = 168 weeks.

Assuming there are no performance or appearance related clauses in his contract, at 350k a week, he stands to earn 350k * 168 = 58.8 million by June 2028. He will be 30 years old by then and probably play 3-4 years more at the highest level. So presumably in 2028, he’ll get his last significant contract as a free agent aged 30.

Now, let’s assume he wants to play regular football and let’s say joins Arsenal on a 4.5 year deal at 250k a week - on Declan Rice wages. Then his hypothetical contract at Arsenal will run for 54 months and he’ll make 54 million. He’ll be out of contract by age 31 (or 32), with probably no big contract coming his way.

Of course if his contract has some performance and appearance related clauses, he will get slightly less at United. But it does appear that just sitting on his contract is the better deal for him. I wouldn’t be surprised if he pulls a Bale at Madrid for the rest of his contract at United, all the while focusing on off field stuff.

 

[The Firestarter]

That salary really makes the club look like a fool... no one in the world outside of City and maybe Madrid can afford that. And they don't want him. Imagine having an asset with ONLY TWO potential customers in the world. Half of that and there'd be plenty of clubs interested. We deserve it.

Add to that Casemiro and Antony's wages and we look like the dumbest company even outside the football world.

 

[Acheron]

Of course if his contract has some performance and appearance related clauses, he will get slightly less at United. But it does appear that just sitting on his contract is the better deal for him. I wouldn’t be surprised if he pulls a Bale at Madrid for the rest of his contract at United, all the while focusing on off field stuff.

Keeping him and not playing him would be the worse case both for the player and the club. If he doesn't play his career as a footballer would be basically finished. Not playing would hurt his image and other sources of income such as sponsors. Then it would also be bad for the team to pay a huge salary for a player who isn't playing.

An agreement has to be reached where the club let him go for a reasonable offer but he also needs to adjust his salary pretensions if he wants to play regular time as a footballer.

 

[redDNA]

This is what one gets when one over indulge a player, we gave him a massive wage, made him the 'Poster boy' of the club,while being average.

Now he thinks that he is better than he is,no wonder he strolls around the pitch thinking that he is prime CR7.

West ham is his level, if he wants to really stay/play in europe he should lower his expectations and wages.

Other alternatives are Saudi, or play with the reserves for three years, maybe that will give him more time to go to Belfast or US.

 

[NK86]

Keeping him and not playing him would be the worse case both for the player and the club. If he doesn't play his career as a footballer would be basically finished. Not playing would hurt his image and other sources of income such as sponsors. Then it would also be bad for the team to pay a huge salary for a player who isn't playing.

An agreement has to be reached where the club let him go for a reasonable offer but he also needs to adjust his salary pretensions if he wants to play regular time as a footballer.

That’s how most fans see it. If he is so delusional that he will not budge from his current salary, then let him train with the reserves and do not register him next season. The club needs to take a hard stance on how much they are willing to give leeway to an underperforming player who also does not seem to be committed to the cause.

 

[EnviedRed]

Plenty of talents have stood out in crap teams. Speaking of Liverpool, they were crap when Suarez was tearing it up for them. Arsenal were fairly crap when Robin Van Persie was tearing up the league also. Even if you look at some International teams like Poland who are average, Lewandowski has 84 goals in 156 international appearances. Stop making excuses for a decent talent at best, who is incredibly self entitled and lazy.

You named outliers and have conflated that with 'plenty'. The exception doesn't disprove the rule.
Suarez and RVP are 2 of the best ever strikers and their teams weren't as bad as this current team. We have 23 points in 20 matches with a negative goal difference. All of our players are inconsistent. We are a historically bad team for a club of our size.

You think Lewa playing against Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia and Moldova helps his goal scoring record? Because I do. Poland are better than many of the teams they play. You aren't making the point that you think you are.

As I said before, Postecoglou said that Salah would struggle at Spurs because the elements aren't there for him to perform but I'm sure you think you know more than a manager.

The best players generally play in the best teams. Most players levels will drop as the team performs worst. We can always name exceptions that doesn't mean the rule is no longer true.

 

[bb8]

Yes, but the key words in my post you quoted were "fund his wages" and that prospect has me concerned.

Let's take it as a given fact that Rashford is on 350k/week and let's stipulate that Rashford will not accept a wage cut. It might be less since we're not in the CL but let's stick with that number. My understanding is that Arsenal's highest paid player is Havertz at 280k/week. If Arsenal were willing to pay us 10m and pay Rashford 280k/week, meaning of course we eat 70k/weekly that might be good business on our part, but it's hard to believe that Arsenal would be willing to dig that deep into their pockets for a player who has badly underperformed for quite a long time now, has had only one great season, and isn't at all built for Arsenal's tactics under Arteta.

The calculus changes is Rashford is willing to accept a substantial wage cut to to join a club like Arsenal or West Ham, the latter being an even more unlikely destination. There may be a second tier club willing to spend that kind of money, but Rashford envisions himself as a top tier player, unworthy of clubs like West Ham or possibly even Arsenal, who have incredibly won even fewer trophies than United in recent years despite how horrifying our overall play has been. Arsenal supporters are ridiculously abusive toward their own players, a fact which I wasn't aware of until the last 48 hours. I really don't think Rashford would be wise to go to a club like Arsenal right now, a club which is reeling and their manager is under pressure. And with the reputation that Rashford has for being an overpaid, underperforming partyer, going to Arsenal even on loan would be disastrous for him...and we certainly can't expect United to underwrite this folly unless it is for the express purpose of tanking the rest of Arsenal's season. I can't think of any reason why Arsenal would want Rashford, or how West Ham would be willing to take on his astronomical wages, or why United would be willing to cover the wages of Rashford while playing for West Ham.

Fair points. I didn't even see us getting as much as you proposed. £10M loan fee plus £280k a week for 20 weeks is £15.6M. That's a lot!

I figured we could get £8M or so total (loan fee plus any wages). That would cover all his wages the rest of the year. I think that's reasonable to expect.

Of course we as fans want him gone, but I think a loan with option or straight loan is more likely. I see Arsenal as a potential fit with Saka and Jesus both hurt. £8M for them is reasonable and low risk to pair Rashford with Havertz, Martinelli, and Trossard, their only other healthy forwards. Rashford may even be better than 1-2 of them.

I imagine the sticking point in negotiations is we're trying to get an obligation to buy built in. I imagine Arsenal would ball at that, as would I. But you'd think we could work out a loan to cover all (or nearly all) his wages at least.

To me, that is far better than Rashford sitting the sidelines the rest of the year. Theres a fair chance he rebuilds some of his value in a better squad, and in the meanwhile we get wage coverage. If things work out poorly, it'll be hard to sell him in the summer. But it'll probably be hard to sell him anyway if he goes 9 months without playing football, and we could always try to reintegrate him next summer if there are no takers.

This all assumes Rashford is basically done at United for now. If we could reintegrate him now, I'd be more judicious in negotiations. But if not, covering his wages the rest of the year in a straight loan deal would be sufficient for me.