To cut to the chase: I get the 'give Rohl time' argument, but if the club really shifted to buying for a clear, club-wide style then letting a manager recruit purely his own profile of player feels like a backward step. Fans were promised a long-term blueprint. We can't afford another constant reset every new appointment brings.
What we were promised
On here a lot of ITK chatter has been about a change of model — recruitment that fits a club identity rather than the whim of whoever sits in the dugout. That idea appeals. Continuity of shape, fewer complete rebuilds, and a defined way we want to play sounds sensible. It gives young players a clearer path and should make successive managers' transitions smoother.
Why letting Rohl sign whoever he wants worries me
To be fair, a manager should have input on signings. You can see why giving Rohl licence makes sense in the short term. But if we are still buying in a manager-led vacuum, we risk the same merry-go-round. What if Rohl favours a profile that clashes with the club's stated identity? What if he signs players suited to his methods and he doesn't work out? We could be left with a squad that needs another jolt of change.
What should happen this summer
We need football operations aligned. A clear recruitment brief that sets the desired shape and attributes, plus a recruitment team that enforces that brief, is the priority. Managers should influence deals, yes, but within a club framework. That avoids repeating previous regimes' mistakes and gives any incoming coach a recognisable base to work from. If we get that right, giving Rohl sensible room to manoeuvre becomes less risky.
That's my two penn’orth. Curious to hear if others think handing full signings control to Rohl is the right move or a recipe for more upheaval.
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.
