To be blunt, being left with only one recognised left-back wasn't great. But that alone doesn't sink the whole recruitment picture. I'm arguing the facts here: who played at LB, what we bought and what we sold — and when you step back, Thelwell's work looks reasonable, not catastrophic.
Numbers don't tell the whole story
Yes, the shorthand of "3 out of 7" signings landing is hardly headline-grabbing, but it's hardly hopeless either. If you include the Rothwell point — where we didn't make a loss — you can reasonably argue a fourth deal didn't damage the club financially. That's not celebrity recruitment, but it's not chaos either. To be fair, recruitment is about probabilities: some hit, some miss. You can nitpick selections and timing, but the balance here isn't rotten.
Context matters — budgets and availability
We can't pretend every gap should be plugged in a single window. Players simply aren't always available, and budgets restrict choices. Squad building is a longer job than one transfer window allows. To expect perfection, especially at a position where viable options are thin or expensive, is unrealistic. You can criticise how the first XI looked early on — I won't argue that the left-back area needed attention — but that one failing doesn't cancel the foundations he put down across the squad.
Keep the debate healthy
I appreciate people like BB4 pointing things out — healthy pushback is what keeps these conversations sharp. Endless speculation threads tire me, so I prefer tactical and recruitment debates. Discussing foundations, transfer context and evidence-based assessments is far more useful than knee-jerk calls for heads. Call it defending Thelwell or just asking for balance: I'm firmly in the latter camp.
Related Articles
About Rangers News Views
Rangers News Views offers daily Glasgow Rangers coverage including match reaction, transfer analysis, SPFL context, tactical breakdowns and opinion-led articles written by supporters for supporters.
