Why £17m For Ferguson Isn’t Good Business

To be blunt, splashing roughly £17m on Ferguson looks more like vanity than sensible business. You can see why folk are tempted — we all want quality — but when there are alternatives who are younger, cheaper and carry sell-on appeal, the arithmetic starts to favour restraint.

Value over headline names

Compare the hypothetical of paying big for a 28-year-old with signing Neil, Dahl and the Serb for a combined fee reportedly closer to £12–14m. Even without getting into scouting nuance, the case for younger players is obvious: they offer longer peak years, higher resale upside and more time to bed into the club. If the family connection around Ferguson hadn’t been there, I suspect fewer people would be so keen to back that price tag.

Resale and the shop window

We seem to be on the cusp of making a tidy profit on Raskin, which is the sort of outcome the board will point to as the model they want to repeat. That approach — recruit, develop, sell, repeat — isn't glamorous, but it breeds sustainability. Get that right and Rangers becomes an attractive stepping stone for ambitious youngsters who see we can showcase them to the Top 5 leagues.

Long term planning, not headline chasing

Long-term success is about stability. Plan three to five years ahead, balance the books, and avoid emotionally-driven big-money bets. Murray put the club into a position with Flo that, in hindsight, looks like an avoidable gamble. It’s a lesson: a transfer fee record that remains untouched often tells you more than pride does. We should be aiming for steady improvement, not glory purchases that risk our future.

Truth is, sensible spending doesn’t make for the splashiest headlines. But it does build a platform. To be fair, fans want excitement — I do too — just not at the cost of recklessness. If the board and recruitment team focus on smart buys and clear pathways, Rangers will be stronger for it in the long run.

Written by Little_Rodney_Wallace: 31 July 2026