There’s a tricky balance here. You can like Moore as a player and still wonder whether a loan signing — especially one with a noticeable price attached — is the best way to build long-term strength. The truth is, supporters aren’t being unreasonable to prefer players we fully own, but there are practical reasons loans exist and sometimes they work for both club and player.
The price-tag double standard
It’s fair to point out the double standard. If a signed player flops, the criticism lands differently than it does on someone on loan. Fans are quicker to turn on a player we bought outright, and yet a loan with the same financial cost can be shrugged off because “he isn’t ours”. That feels inconsistent. You can sympathise — a transfer fee could be the difference between filling several squad gaps or backing one gamble. That’s why the debate keeps bubbling up.
Why loans still make sense
To be fair, loans aren’t automatically wrong. They give minutes to players who might not get them here, and sometimes that accelerates development. You can see why Curtis went out to get to the next level; game time matters. Loans can also be lower risk: if it doesn’t work out, the club hasn’t committed long-term. But that doesn’t mean we should stop wanting more homegrown lads through the door.
Where the academy fits in
I’d prefer a youngster coming through our own academy if we’re talking development. There’s pride in that, and it makes squad planning cleaner. That said, none of this should stop us backing the player while heʼs wearing the jersey. Fans who can’t accept that new signings need time will always lose that argument. Support gets results — give a loan player a fair crack and we might well see progress. Simple as that.
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.
