The Summer 2022 Rangers Transfer Window Rumours and Deals - Thread

[craig 5,195]

4 minutes ago, the gunslinger said:

ok 2

Just teasing mate.

 

Generally I agree that loan deals aren't great.  But the reality is that some loan deals can be excellent, particularly when they fill a gap that you can't easily fill yourself.

[craig 5,195]

2 minutes ago, the gunslinger said:

the one on the pitch was very culpable the one already bombed out by then was no use to us when needed and the one not even fit was the worst of the lot. 

 

We loaned in Jan instead of buying and it cost us the league. 

 

Partly as it was so late in the day. partly because loan deals are shite. partly who we loaned. 

 

i don't think i am saying anything here most people disagree with TBH. 

 

The one on the pitch was nowhere near as culpable as our permanent players.  Diallo was NOT the reason we lost that game.  Borna, Tav, McGregor, Kamara and Arfield were all bigger contributors to that defeat than Diallo.  Injuries happen - so going by your logic we can blame Helander for losing that game ??

 

As I say, it appears to me that you are creating a false narrative around a preferred agenda.

 

That said, I will bow out here because it is all taking away from the actual transfer rumours thread

[the gunslinger 3,366]

15 minutes ago, craig said:

Just teasing mate.

 

Generally I agree that loan deals aren't great.  But the reality is that some loan deals can be excellent, particularly when they fill a gap that you can't easily fill yourself.

Some can be for sure. 

 

At rangers for every on of those i am fairly sure we get 4 or 5 utter wastes of time and money.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

14 minutes ago, craig said:

The one on the pitch was nowhere near as culpable as our permanent players.  Diallo was NOT the reason we lost that game.  Borna, Tav, McGregor, Kamara and Arfield were all bigger contributors to that defeat than Diallo.  Injuries happen - so going by your logic we can blame Helander for losing that game ??

 

As I say, it appears to me that you are creating a false narrative around a preferred agenda.

 

That said, I will bow out here because it is all taking away from the actual transfer rumours thread

I  disagree on Diallo 

he wasn't injured he was never going to be for the game and we knew that going in apparently. we could have had soutter with the money spent on either of them and Barasic wouldn't have been on the park as a simple example. 

 

our January window lost us the league and that was almost exclusively loan deals. 

 

The old firm game is just part of that. 

 

We might have lost that game anyway. We also might have been 6 clear if we had acted differently when we did lose. 

 

It looked great at the time but history will show it to be shambolic. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Bill 13,717]

Denigrating loan deals is such a futile activity. Loan deals are no better or worse that permanent signings, they're only more or less appropriate in any and every given recruitment project, which depends on a unique and complex mix of the needs of the individual player, the selling club, the acquiring club and whatever competition there is for the player's signature. 

 

If you're going to offer advice to Rangers it should simply be to recruit the best possible players on the best possible terms and in the best possible interests of the club. Whether that's on a loan deal or permanent contract should be utterly irrelevant.

[Gonzo79 13,589]

13 minutes ago, the gunslinger said:

he wasn't injured he was never going to be for the game and we knew that going in apparently

What do you mean?

[Rousseau 9,361]

4 minutes ago, Gonzo79 said:

What do you mean?

Fit.

[Sutton_blows_goats 4,178]

1 hour ago, craig said:

Has a price been quoted ?

Only through the rumour mill. Price i seen was around 3 million which for me is too much. He is out of contract after next season too IIRC.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

12 minutes ago, Gonzo79 said:

What do you mean?

Yes fit. He was clearly weeks away when we signed him. Kind of became months. 

[the gunslinger 3,366]

16 minutes ago, Bill said:

Denigrating loan deals is such a futile activity. Loan deals are no better or worse that permanent signings, they're only more or less appropriate in any and every given recruitment project, which depends on a unique and complex mix of the needs of the individual player, the selling club, the acquiring club and whatever competition there is for the player's signature. 

 

If you're going to offer advice to Rangers it should simply be to recruit the best possible players on the best possible terms and in the best possible interests of the club. Whether that's on a loan deal or permanent contract should be utterly irrelevant.

the best terms for the best players are always permanent though. At least for rangers. 

 

But if loans were no better or worse why so many failures.