Developing players or developing another club's asset?

There’s a simple argument here — loans are part of football, sure, but they shouldn’t become an easy way to bankroll another club’s asset while we let one of our own stall. If the outlay over two seasons is going to be around six million and the player returns single-digit output, you have to ask if it’s good business for Rangers.

When a loan makes sense

To be fair, loans can and do solve short-term problems. Covering an injury, plugging a gap in a particular position, or trying before you buy are all valid reasons. A sensible loan can be a neat stop-gap and sometimes grows into a proper purchase. You can see why fans get excited when a winger or striker looks lively in the short term.

Where I think people lose the plot

The issue is the headline cost and the long-term outcome. If a loanee bangs in 20 plus goals and chips in double-figure assists, the clamour is fair enough. But if the return is more like six goals and four assists over a season, that’s a different story. Paying the equivalent of a sizeable fee over two seasons for that level of output while the player still belongs to another club - it feels like we’re funding someone else’s asset, not ours.

Our own players need clarity

We’ve also got a youngster in-house who needs a pathway and investment. If he’s going to be the future, then fees, last season’s numbers and the development plan matter. Fans aren’t arguing against loans across the board, they just want the club to weigh up opportunity cost. Is throwing money at a short-term loan really better than giving that cash, and the minutes, to someone with our colours on his chest?

There’s no easy answer. Loans are part and parcel of the modern game, but they should come with a clear end product for Rangers, not just a neat bit of form that benefits someone else. That’s the point most of us are trying to make.

Written by Boy blue 4: 5 August 2026