Having been left out of Manchester United's squad that defeated neighbours Manchester City at the weekend, Marcus Rashford broke his silence this week with a bombshell interview.

The 27-year-old, a graduate of United's Academy and a player who has amassed 138 goals in 426 games across all competitions for his boyhood club since breaking through in 2015, told journalist Henry Winter that he was "ready for a new challenge" when quizzed during a visit to his old primary school on Tuesday.

His comments were followed up by a plea from United boss Ruben Amorim for Rashford to stay and fight, telling the assembled media at his Wednesday press conference that the team were better with him a part of it.

ALSO READ: Ruben Amorim breaks silence on Rashford wanting to leave United

ALSO READ: Touchline reaction was maybe the final straw for Rashford at United

But with Rashford's form having been on a significant decline since his banner 30-goal season in 2022/2023 - a campaign that saw the club engage him over a new long-term contract worth around £325,000-per week-until 2028 - his omission from Sunday's derby win, allied with United wanting to cost cut and sell players in order to reinvest in the team, points to an exit from Old Trafford.

Rashford's comments will likely accelerate his exit and, with the January transfer window just around the corner, there is the chance for the club to cash-in on a valuable asset who wants to leave - and who hasn't been able to contribute to the expected levels. But what might it mean for United financially?

Rashford hit just seven Premier League goals last season and four this season across a total of 48 games. For the size of his deal the club aren't getting value for money, and with them open to offloading him there won't be too many willing bidders with wages at that level.

What that means for United is they will likely have to take an enormous hit on any transfer fee, even with him having four years left on his contract, because any possible suitors wouldn't want to be on the hook for both a significant fee and wages given his output recently.

The pool of willing clubs would also likely be shallow. A £325,000-per-week deal is something that the Saudi Pro League clubs might be willing to engage in, but there won't be too many from Europe's major leagues who would be meeting those costs. Paris Saint-Germain have been linked in the past, and Rashford is still young enough to be seen as having room for improvement, but the approach at the Ligue 1 side has shifted under the owners QSI, with the Lionel Messi, Neymar Jnr and Kylian Mbappe era over, and the Paris club more focused on developing younger talent. QSI are also rumoured to be open to an exit.

Tottenham Hotspur might be a destination, but they wouldn't be shaking the wage structure to such an extent, while it's hard to imagine any other of the so-called "big six" would be engaged. Serie A clubs can't afford it, only Bayern Munich could in Germany, and only Real Madrid could in Spain.

What it all means for United is that a player that has come through the system and had a value of £100million 18 months ago could now be ushered out for a fraction of that in order for the club to overcome the problem of the onerous contract that they handed out.

Any sale of Rashford, were it to occur in January, would count as pure profit that can be booked straightaway due to his status as an Academy graduate meaning he has no book value, i.e. no transfer fee still needing to be amortised before any profit can be realised.

At £25million, while that might not seem a major sum for United and their profit and sustainability (PSR) position in the current financial year, it could prove beneficial, particularly in ridding themselves of the large £16.9million per-year deal that Rashford is on, of which there is another four years and some £67million in wages still to be paid out.

It would also likely herald the beginning of the end of the really major contracts that the club had been known for handing out, with it hard to imagine that Ineos would have sanctioned either of the contracts for Rashford or even Casemiro given their more austere approach.

At the start of the last January transfer window, the now-departed Erik ten Hag's comments about United's ability to manoeuvre in the market should be telling about how much wriggle room they actually have with PSR at present, the Dutchman saying: "There is no space for FFP to do something about this lack of quality in the striker position."

Analysis of United's 2023/2024 financials back in September by football finance expert Swiss Ramble had United being PSR compliant by just £2million, and that was based on the assumption that the £35million linked to the share sale to Ratcliffe was allowed to be deducted, as United expected it would be.

These things don't radically change without player trading, and if United can realise some profit on Rashford, say £25million, and also rid themselves of his wages then it would put them in a stronger position to head into either January or the summer with the ability for Amorim to do more.

Unless a top-four run was deemed on this season, then it's likely that United would wait until the summer, as the January window seldom offers the chance for good deals given the lack of available options on the market and the reluctance of clubs to sell players midway through a campaign.

Now into a new financial year, the sale of other home-grown players such as Mason Greenwood, Scott McTominay and Willy Kambwala has allowed the club to realise healthy profit, and that will alleviate some of the PSR concern.

But with Ratcliffe - and Ineos - wanting to change the culture around spending and recruitment at the club, the groundwork for future moves in the market will be being made now, and Rashford may find himself a part of that plan, especially given concerns over the potential for another season without UEFA Champions League football next season, something that would be financially impactful for a club that had become so used to the huge sums of money on offer annually.