Modern football is ruthless. You blink and a manager is already under pressure, and the next name is being floated before the paint is dry on the contract. That “you don’t get time” line isn’t just a Rangers thing either, it’s everywhere, club and international level. But if that’s the world we’re living in, Rangers have to be smarter about how we build, because constant resets cost you more than patience ever does.
I’ve always felt we weren’t historically a sacking club in the way some are, at least not until we were properly back in the Premiership and the expectation level went through the roof again. Since then it’s been a bit more twitchy. And you can understand it. The supporters aren’t turning up to watch a project drift. The manager is expected to win now, play well now, and somehow rebuild at the same time.
Recruitment has to feel joined up
The bigger frustration is when the club’s decision-making doesn’t look joined up. In the fan view, it becomes “who is actually steering this?” because you start hearing about signings being pushed, then paused, then shelved. If a director of football type is paying fees that look heavy for the market, supporters will question it every single time, especially when it’s attached to players coming from lower leagues or deals padded by add-ons and loan costs that we never really get clarity on.
The user argument is that Thelwell overpaid for certain names, and cited examples like Asagaard and Chermiti, plus loan fees we don’t know about. Whether you agree with those valuations or not, it’s the sort of thing that sticks because fans judge it against what we need most: players who make an instant difference in Scotland and in Europe, not a “maybe in two years” punt.
If the manager vetoes targets, the clock speeds up
It also gets messy if the manager is cancelling or refusing targets, or dragging his feet while insisting on his own options. That might be the manager trying to shape the squad the way he wants, fair enough. But it becomes a problem when it delays deals, forces you into late-market scrambles, or leaves you missing out and overpaying elsewhere. The mention of Aarons in particular fits that general fear: a manager having favourites, and the club bending towards it.
From the supporter perspective in this post, choosing Martin is framed as a turning point that contributed to losing Dessers and Igamane, with a belief that Igamane might still be here otherwise. That’s a strong claim, and it shows where the anger is really directed: not just at one transfer fee, but at the consequences of picking the wrong man and then recruiting to suit him.
Stop paying for the same rebuild twice
All of this circles back to one point: if you accept managers don’t get time, then Rangers can’t afford a scattergun approach between the boardroom, recruitment and the dugout. You either appoint a manager to fit the club’s squad plan, or you fully back his approach, but you cannot keep doing half of each. That’s how you end up spending money, binning plans, and spending the money again.
The call in the post is simple: we’d be in a better place with Koppen as DoF and using the money more wisely. Whether that specific solution is right or wrong, the principle is spot on. Rangers need one clear strategy, because right now it too often feels like we’re building for a future that changes every 16 months.
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.
